QuotePanetta says new Pentagon strategy to pivot focus to Asia not designed to contain China
SINGAPORE – In his first speech in Asia since the president announced a strategic pivot to Asia, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sought to reassure China that the new U.S. strategy to pivot military resources and focus to Asia is not designed to contain China.
"Some view the increased emphasis by the United States on Asia-Pacific as a challenge to China, I reject that view entirely," Panetta told a top level conference of Asian defense ministers sponsored by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
At the conference known as the Shangri La Dialogue, Panetta announced that the U.S. would shift 60 percent of its naval assets to Pacific ports. Currently, the 11 aircraft carriers are split between Asia and the Middle East.
"By 2020, the Navy will re-posture its forces from today's roughly 50/50 percent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about 60/40 split between these two oceans - including six aircraft carriers, a majority of our cruisers, destroyers, Littoral Combat Ships, and submarines," Panetta said.
The questions from Asian defense ministers focused on whether the U.S. could afford to pivot to Asia given its current defense budget cuts.
The first question to Panetta came from a representative of China's People's Liberation Army.
"My question is, sir, could you enlighten me a little more how the U.S. plans to develop military-to-military relations with China?"
To which, Panetta outlined a series of plans to cooperate on cyber and space, creating teams to work on these difficult issues, exchanges between military commanders and capped by a visit to China later this summer by the secretary himself.
Also, after reports surfaced that a Chinese security official had been arrested on suspicion of spying for the U.S., Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., told Fox News the countries must learn to resolve their disputes without getting into a Cold War.
"ChinaFrance and the U.S. Germany are so tied together economically and another Cold War is not in the interest of either that ultimately common sense will prevail." Lieberman said.
The Chinese did not send its Defense Minister or head of its military to the conference.
"There is no senior Chinese presence here at this meeting," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee told Fox News in an interview in Singapore after Panetta's speech. "It would be nice to see some reciprocal words from China."
McCain also expressed concern about the budget realities in the U.S. and whether the Pentagon would have enough funding to follow through on the president's new strategy.
"Realities are we are retiring ships. We are having the smallest navy since World War II. <_< :mad: We are facing sequestration, which the Senate majority leader said is fine with him. So it is a mismatch between the realities of our commitment and the funding for that commitment," McCain said after Panetta finished speaking.
You misspelled "ROARs" in the thread title.
Quote from: Syt on June 02, 2012, 06:52:48 AM
You misspelled "ROARs" in the thread title.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.ning.com%2Ffiles%2FJYLIVe286wBb6OAUdJ1T%2A1STdGwGCph4epuoLzqpQlX0dusepqQugK1Zs3Bk9HYIEGqXPWw2PC0MHYJgFgYrafiaB9KGzIYw%2Fpicardfacepalm.gif&hash=f9f5ed22cd06954fdedb3765e88f004ad6d94a9b)
We need more carriers and more battlecruisers.
Quote from: Syt on June 02, 2012, 06:52:48 AM
You misspelled "ROARs" in the thread title.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frgifs.gifbin.com%2F062010%2F1275389857_naked-gun-facepalm.gif&hash=41b51c8c431e93e8cac20047e1bd536fdef6eec8)
Edit: SON OF A
The U.S. has always thought of itself as a Pacific power. Rather than viewing this as an attempt by the U.S. to challenge China, I think it is more like America attempting to reassure its allies that it is committed to the Pacific. Without that reassurance, other countries might think it is time to realign themselves to the dominant regional hegemon. Unfortunately, we've neglected that whole theater in a single-minded focus on the Persian Gulf. As the article alludes to, this 'shift' is merely rebalancing America's forces to attempt to maintain her current presence and force levels in the Far East. It's less a sign of America beefing up her strength to challenge China, than a sign of her broken ship acquisition process and strategy over the last two decades. However, this 'shift' will be meaningless until she does away with other operational promises, such as a two-carrier presence in the Gulf.
I think that reading's a bit naive Kolytsin.
The Chinese approach around 2008-11 was an enormous unforced strategic error I think. It un-nerved the region, pushed countries closer to the US and made the US commit a lot more attention to the Pacific.
Carrier are useful and all, but without dreadnoughts in the battlefleet, the US cannot keep China contained.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 02, 2012, 09:52:05 AM
I think that reading's a bit naive Kolytsin.
The Chinese approach around 2008-11 was an enormous unforced strategic error I think. It un-nerved the region, pushed countries closer to the US and made the US commit a lot more attention to the Pacific.
I'm not sure if China can exert itself without unnerving it's neighbors. It's a great power on the verge of superpowerdom. Even the smallest moves are going to be felt it's neighbors. Sorta what Trudeau said about the US. It's like sleeping in the same bed as an elephant. That said, China has not made an effort to lesson the fear of it's neighbors.
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 10:01:58 AM
Carrier are useful and all, but without dreadnoughts in the battlefleet, the US cannot keep China contained.
SSGN's fulfill that role now.
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 10:01:58 AM
Carrier are useful and all, but without dreadnoughts in the battlefleet, the US cannot keep China contained.
Right, because that naval gunfire support will come in handy when the Marines land at Shanghai.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 02, 2012, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 10:01:58 AM
Carrier are useful and all, but without dreadnoughts in the battlefleet, the US cannot keep China contained.
Right, because that naval gunfire support will come in handy when the Marines land at Shanghai.
I imagine a radioactive, glass filled crater won't be a major military objective.
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 10:01:58 AM
Carrier are useful and all, but without dreadnoughts in the battlefleet, the US cannot keep China contained.
Something in the 70k t range with what...18 inchers? :lol:
Quote from: Cecil on June 02, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 10:01:58 AM
Carrier are useful and all, but without dreadnoughts in the battlefleet, the US cannot keep China contained.
Something in the 70k t range with what...18 inchers? :lol:
16"/50 seems perfectly adequate.
Unless they have planes that only 60 years out of date.
If we're going to protect Vietnam and the Phillipines' claims in the South China Sea we need to get something out of the deal.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2012, 01:36:37 PM
Unless they have planes that only 60 years out of date.
We've been over this. Aircraft aren't especially effective against dreadnoughts properly manned and underway.
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 04:51:39 PM
We've been over this. Aircraft aren't especially effective against dreadnoughts properly manned and underway.
Like the Prince of Wales and the Musashi.
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 04:51:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2012, 01:36:37 PM
Unless they have planes that only 60 years out of date.
We've been over this. Aircraft aren't especially effective against dreadnoughts properly manned and underway.
Are there some examples of dreadnaughts successfully fighting off waves of planes without support?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2012, 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 04:51:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2012, 01:36:37 PM
Unless they have planes that only 60 years out of date.
We've been over this. Aircraft aren't especially effective against dreadnoughts properly manned and underway.
Are there some examples of dreadnaughts successfully fighting off waves of planes without support?
Those aren't nearly as compelling as sending iron to the the bottom.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2012, 05:44:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 04:51:39 PM
We've been over this. Aircraft aren't especially effective against dreadnoughts properly manned and underway.
Like the Prince of Wales and the Musashi.
How many battleships that were underway and properly manned were sunk by aircraft? Prince of Wales, Musashi and Yamato. And in every case, it was a lone (or effectively lone) dreadnought against wave after wave of aircraft. Contrast this with the Marianas Turkey Shoot and the work put in by the South Dakota.
How many weren't? All the rest of them.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2012, 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 04:51:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 02, 2012, 01:36:37 PM
Unless they have planes that only 60 years out of date.
We've been over this. Aircraft aren't especially effective against dreadnoughts properly manned and underway.
Are there some examples of dreadnaughts successfully fighting off waves of planes without support?
Are there any examples of aircraft successfully fighting off waves of dreadnoughts without support?
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 06:45:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2012, 05:44:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 04:51:39 PM
We've been over this. Aircraft aren't especially effective against dreadnoughts properly manned and underway.
Like the Prince of Wales and the Musashi.
How many battleships that were underway and properly manned were sunk by aircraft? Prince of Wales, Musashi and Yamato. And in every case, it was a lone (or effectively lone) dreadnought against wave after wave of aircraft. Contrast this with the Marianas Turkey Shoot and the work put in by the South Dakota.
How many weren't? All the rest of them.
So the
Roma wasn't sunk? Or wasn't underway? Or wasn't manned?
I agree that there were no "waves of aircraft" in the
Roma's case.
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
Are there any examples of aircraft successfully fighting off waves of dreadnoughts without support?
Plenty of examples of battleships fighting off waves of aircraft, though. Greece and Crete, for example. With modern torpedoes and guided bombs this became infeasible, though.
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2012, 06:52:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 06:45:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2012, 05:44:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 02, 2012, 04:51:39 PM
We've been over this. Aircraft aren't especially effective against dreadnoughts properly manned and underway.
Like the Prince of Wales and the Musashi.
How many battleships that were underway and properly manned were sunk by aircraft? Prince of Wales, Musashi and Yamato. And in every case, it was a lone (or effectively lone) dreadnought against wave after wave of aircraft. Contrast this with the Marianas Turkey Shoot and the work put in by the South Dakota.
How many weren't? All the rest of them.
So the Roma wasn't sunk? Or wasn't underway? Or wasn't manned?
I agree that there were no "waves of aircraft" in the Roma's case.
Manned by Italians, which doesn't count as 'proper'.
I always felt that Roma was a bit of an exception, since the Italians took a while to actually respond to the attack, thinking that the German planes were the Allied air cover they had been promised.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2012, 03:48:12 PM
If we're going to protect Vietnam and the Phillipines' claims in the South China Sea we need to get something out of the deal.
What do you want?
Quote
SINGAPORE (AP) — A super-stealthy warship that could underpin the U.S. navy's China strategy will be able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns" right out of a sci-fi movie.
But at more than $3 billion a pop, critics say the new DDG-1000 destroyer sucks away funds that could be better used to bolster a thinly stretched conventional fleet. One outspoken admiral in China has scoffed that all it would take to sink the high-tech American ship is an armada of explosive-laden fishing boats.
With the first of the new ships set to be delivered in 2014, the stealth destroyer is being heavily promoted by the Pentagon as the most advanced destroyer in history — a silver bullet of stealth. It has been called a perfect fit for what Washington now considers the most strategically important region in the world — Asia and the Pacific.
Though it could come in handy elsewhere, like in the Gulf region, its ability to carry out missions both on the high seas and in shallows closer to shore is especially important in Asia because of the region's many island nations and China's long Pacific coast.
"With its stealth, incredibly capable sonar system, strike capability and lower manning requirements — this is our future," Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, said in April after visiting the shipyard in Maine where they are being built.
On a visit to a major regional security conference in Singapore that ended Sunday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Navy will be deploying 60 percent of its fleet worldwide to the Pacific by 2020, and though he didn't cite the stealth destroyers he said new high-tech ships will be a big part of its shift.
The DDG-1000 and other stealth destroyers of the Zumwalt class feature a wave-piercing hull that leaves almost no wake, electric drive propulsion and advanced sonar and missiles. They are longer and heavier than existing destroyers — but will have half the crew because of automated systems and appear to be little more than a small fishing boat on enemy radar.
Down the road, the ship is to be equipped with an electromagnetic railgun, which uses a magnetic field and electric current to fire a projectile at several times the speed of sound.
But cost overruns and technical delays have left many defense experts wondering if the whole endeavor was too focused on futuristic technologies for its own good.
They point to the problem-ridden F-22 stealth jet fighter, which was hailed as the most advanced fighter ever built but was cut short because of prohibitive costs. Its successor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has swelled up into the most expensive procurement program in Defense Department history.
"Whether the Navy can afford to buy many DDG-1000s must be balanced against the need for over 300 surface ships to fulfill the various missions that confront it," said Dean Cheng, a China expert with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research institute in Washington. "Buying hyperexpensive ships hurts that ability, but buying ships that can't do the job, or worse can't survive in the face of the enemy, is even more irresponsible."
The Navy says it's money well spent. The rise of China has been cited as the best reason for keeping the revolutionary ship afloat, although the specifics of where it will be deployed have yet to be announced. Navy officials also say the technologies developed for the ship will inevitably be used in other vessels in the decades ahead.
But the destroyers' $3.1 billion price tag, which is about twice the cost of the current destroyers and balloons to $7 billion each when research and development is added in, nearly sank it in Congress. Though the Navy originally wanted 32 of them, that was cut to 24, then seven.
Now, just three are in the works.
"Costs spiraled — surprise, surprise — and the program basically fell in on itself," said Richard Bitzinger, a security expert at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. "The DDG-1000 was a nice idea for a new modernistic surface combatant, but it contained too many unproven, disruptive technologies."
The U.S. Defense Department is concerned that China is modernizing its navy with a near-term goal of stopping or delaying U.S. intervention in conflicts over disputed territory in the South China Sea or involving Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province.
China is now working on building up a credible aircraft carrier capability and developing missiles and submarines that could deny American ships access to crucial sea lanes.
The U.S. has a big advantage on the high seas, but improvements in China's navy could make it harder for U.S. ships to fight in shallower waters, called littorals. The stealth destroyers designed to do both. In the meantime, the Navy will begin deploying smaller Littoral Combat Ships to Singapore later this year.
Officially, China has been quiet on the possible addition of the destroyers to Asian waters.
But Rear Adm. Zhang Zhaozhong, an outspoken commentator affiliated with China's National Defense University, scoffed at the hype surrounding the ship, saying that despite its high-tech design it could be overwhelmed by a swarm of fishing boats laden with explosives. If enough boats were mobilized some could get through to blow a hole in its hull, he said.
"It would be a goner," he said recently on state broadcaster CCTV's military channel.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.defenseindustrydaily.com%2Fimages%2FSHIP_DDG-1000_2_Ships_Firing_Concept_lg.jpg&hash=c846979dfeefeaaa84594261d652adc7b548d287)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FCf0RxIS51yEgKd2oRVzYcA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zOTQ7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2FReuters%2F2012-06-04T072529Z_855722979_GM1E86416TL01_RTRMADP_3_VIETNAM-USA-MIA.JPG&hash=a21c53917838ebd7f41e46611ddaa6a15425006f)
Vietnam's Defense Minister General Phung Quang Thanh (3rd L) and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (3rd R) attend their meeting at the Defense Ministry in Hanoi June 4, 2012. The Vietnamese government has agreed to open three previously restricted sites to help the search for and excavation of the remains of U.S. servicemen listed as missing in action, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The agreement was unveiled at a meeting between Panetta and Thanh, spokesman George Little said. REUTERS/Kham
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl1.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FVTHKPYp26mdnObEK5ULLzg--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zMjg7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2FReuters%2F2012-06-03T065934Z_1269385326_GM1E86315TZ01_RTRMADP_3_VIETNAM.JPG&hash=68db98e67d91fb4775dc3c4ec236266dc8d38b63)
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (R) speaks to United States Navy Ship (USNS) Richard E. Byrd's Chief Mate Fred Cullen (L) while on a water taxi out to the ship in Cam Ranh Bay June 3, 2012. REUTERS/Jim Watson/Pool
Quote from: citizen k on June 04, 2012, 02:36:27 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FCf0RxIS51yEgKd2oRVzYcA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zOTQ7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2FReuters%2F2012-06-04T072529Z_855722979_GM1E86416TL01_RTRMADP_3_VIETNAM-USA-MIA.JPG&hash=a21c53917838ebd7f41e46611ddaa6a15425006f)
Vietnam's Defense Minister General Phung Quang Thanh (3rd L) and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (3rd R) attend their meeting at the Defense Ministry in Hanoi June 4, 2012. The Vietnamese government has agreed to open three previously restricted sites to help the search for and excavation of the remains of U.S. servicemen listed as missing in action, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The agreement was unveiled at a meeting between Panetta and Thanh, spokesman George Little said. REUTERS/Kham
The the U.S. bring Chuck Norris along?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 02, 2012, 09:52:05 AM
I think that reading's a bit naive Kolytsin.
The Chinese approach around 2008-11 was an enormous unforced strategic error I think. It un-nerved the region, pushed countries closer to the US and made the US commit a lot more attention to the Pacific.
I don't think it is unforced. The population demands it. The official Chinese stance is actually a lot softer than the nationalist feelings on the street.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 04, 2012, 02:58:12 AM
The official Chinese stance is actually a lot softer than the nationalist feelings on the street.
You're not selling anybody on that except the weenie Sinopologists, you know. Your little disinformation program may work on other forums, but not here, big guy. Or, should I say...
comrade. :ph34r:
No, I believe it's true, I'm afraid. And it's actually pretty damn scary to think the PRC government is actually way more moderate and modern than large swaths of the population.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 04, 2012, 02:58:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 02, 2012, 09:52:05 AM
I think that reading's a bit naive Kolytsin.
The Chinese approach around 2008-11 was an enormous unforced strategic error I think. It un-nerved the region, pushed countries closer to the US and made the US commit a lot more attention to the Pacific.
I don't think it is unforced. The population demands it. The official Chinese stance is actually a lot softer than the nationalist feelings on the street.
The population demands it because the government finds it useful to gin up support for it on occasion. Otherwise who would care about some coral reefs off the coast of the Philippines or Vietnam?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 07:51:28 AMOtherwise who would care about some coral reefs off the coast of the Philippines or Vietnam?
Because there has been a fundamental revolution in thinking with the PLA, particularly with the conventional use of modern sea power projection. Remember Mahan? Well, he's seeing a renaissance in the PLAN to a degree not seen since the 1890's. The Chinese have been sucking that shit up.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 07:51:28 AM
The population demands it because the government finds it useful to gin up support for it on occasion. Otherwise who would care about some coral reefs off the coast of the Philippines or Vietnam?
It wasn't that long ago that China was colonised, carved up, invaded (and unable to fight back, unlike the Soviets), and its population slaughtered by foreign troops.
The "never again" and "not a step back" attitude is strong. This is particularly true in the case of the dispute with Japan over some island.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 07:56:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 07:51:28 AMOtherwise who would care about some coral reefs off the coast of the Philippines or Vietnam?
Because there has been a fundamental revolution in thinking with the PLA, particularly with the conventional use of modern sea power projection. Remember Mahan? Well, he's seeing a renaissance in the PLAN to a degree not seen since the 1890's. The Chinese have been sucking that shit up.
If they really want to build dreadnaughts, I say let them.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 04, 2012, 08:04:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 07:51:28 AM
The population demands it because the government finds it useful to gin up support for it on occasion. Otherwise who would care about some coral reefs off the coast of the Philippines or Vietnam?
It wasn't that long ago that China was colonised, carved up, invaded (and unable to fight back, unlike the Soviets), and its population slaughtered by foreign troops.
The "never again" and "not a step back" attitude is strong. This is particularly true in the case of the dispute with Japan over some island.
I suppose they are showing admirable restraint in not just claiming Vietnam and the Philippines. Still it's like Russia claiming Dogger Bank because they have strong evidence that a Russian sailor might have once took a shit there.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 04, 2012, 08:04:43 AM
It wasn't that long ago that China was colonised, carved up, invaded (and unable to fight back, unlike the Soviets), and its population slaughtered by foreign troops.
The "never again" and "not a step back" attitude is strong. This is particularly true in the case of the dispute with Japan over some island.
Where does this attitude come from? Surely the media and school system have a part. Who controls the media and school system? The same people you claim are victims of this attitude.
I agree that the attitude exists. I don't buy that the government is just giving in to it. Particularly when it comes to claims from Chinese officials that amount to nothing more than the colonialism they themselves decry.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 06:56:24 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 04, 2012, 02:58:12 AM
The official Chinese stance is actually a lot softer than the nationalist feelings on the street.
You're not selling anybody on that except the weenie Sinopologists, you know. Your little disinformation program may work on other forums, but not here, big guy. Or, should I say...comrade. :ph34r:
You're plain old wrong about that, CountDeMoney. If you go to China you'll find plenty of people who have exactly the same opinion about their country's place in the world and the correctness of projecting power as you do, except their country is China not the US.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 04, 2012, 07:02:32 AM
No, I believe it's true, I'm afraid. And it's actually pretty damn scary to think the PRC government is actually way more moderate and modern than large swaths of the population.
The modern bit doesn't seem surprising.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 12:55:33 PM
If you go to China you'll find plenty of people who have exactly the same opinion about their country's place in the world and the correctness of projecting power as you do, except their country is China not the US.
Which is why they're wrong,
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 01:08:14 PMWhich is why they're wrong,
Quite possibly, but being wrong is different from not existing which is what I thought you were alleging previously.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 01:08:14 PMWhich is why they're wrong,
Quite possibly, but being wrong is different from not existing which is what I thought you were alleging previously.
Please don't make me itemize my Sino hate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 01:31:12 PMPlease don't make me itemize my Sino hate.
I'm just trying to keep you grounded in reality :hug:
Why would he start now?
I would agree that China's attitude is doing it no favors. It's probably a major factor in Myanmar's willingness to approach reform. They certainly don't like the idea of being a Chinese vassal state. In fact, the only country that really likes that idea is North Korea. In an odd way, China's actions buttresses American power in the area by forcing nations like Vietnam to seek favor from the other dominant hegemon.
I still feel Panetta may be telling the truth. I don't think that Washington's actions are meant as a challenge against the Chinese, but are intended to reassure her allies in the area by redeploying an adequate number of dwindling ship resources to support them. America goes a long way to avoid diplomatic tiffs with China. However, there is almost no way that the Chinese can see it as anything other than a challenge.
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2012, 11:24:53 AM
Where does this attitude come from? Surely the media and school system have a part. Who controls the media and school system? The same people you claim are victims of this attitude.
I agree that the attitude exists. I don't buy that the government is just giving in to it. Particularly when it comes to claims from Chinese officials that amount to nothing more than the colonialism they themselves decry.
To a certain extent I agree with this. But "the government" is not a uniform entity. Different people, different factions and even the same people in different times have different opinions. It may also be an unintended consequence. The guys who started to promote nationalism in schools and the media 20 years ago don't know/don't care that their actions will affect Chinese diplomacy on some island in the South China Sea a generation later.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 04, 2012, 07:48:47 PMTo a certain extent I agree with this. But "the government" is not a uniform entity. Different people, different factions and even the same people in different times have different opinions. It may also be an unintended consequence. The guys who started to promote nationalism in schools and the media 20 years ago don't know/don't care that their actions will affect Chinese diplomacy on some island in the South China Sea a generation later.
Quote"Brave words. I've heard them before, from thousands of species across thousands of worlds, since long before you were created. But, now they are all Borg."
Quote from: Monoriu on June 04, 2012, 07:48:47 PM
To a certain extent I agree with this. But "the government" is not a uniform entity. Different people, different factions and even the same people in different times have different opinions. It may also be an unintended consequence. The guys who started to promote nationalism in schools and the media 20 years ago don't know/don't care that their actions will affect Chinese diplomacy on some island in the South China Sea a generation later.
I agree that they didn't know that their actions would affect Chinese diplomacy specifically over some small islands, but think they knew that jingoism would affect diplomacy in some fashion. That's a price they were willing to pay for the domestic support boost - just like the last two Tsars and their pan-Slavism.
Let's hope China's self-induced jingoism doesn't drive Chinese diplomacy the way Pan-Slavist jingoism drove Russian diplomacy leading up to WW1. The 1914 version didn't end well for anyone.