I can hear CdM's heavy breathing from here!
Tons of links embedded in this article.
http://www.businessinsider.com/live-weapons-involved-china-japanlife-fire-attack-drills-tracers-japan-f-15s-2013-1
QuoteJapan Threatens To Fire On Chinese Fighters — China Says 'There Will Be No Second Shot'
Robert Johnson | Jan. 21, 2013, 2:35 PM | 32,412 | 116When Chinese and Japanese fighters met for the first time over disputed islands in the East China Sea earlier this month, Japan promptly declared its right to fire tracers at China's jets.
Though met with outrage by China at the time, Japan continues promoting the live firing which Chinese military academics are calling the "first shot."
The Tokyo AP reports Japan believes it's simply following protocol:
"Every country has procedures for how to deal with a violation of its territory that continues after multiple cautionary measures," Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said Wednesday when asked if tracer shots would be fired against intruding aircraft that refuse to change course. "We have response measures ready that are consistent with global standards."
If Japan is using the talk of tracer fire to gauge Chinese reaction, the tactic worked.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry said Sunday his country is on "high alert" and that Japan and the U.S. are ignoring the fact that "the islands are China's inherent territory."
Never to be left out, Chinese military academics quoted in Beijing's state-run media provided far more fiery replies:
"Japan's desire to fire tracer warning shots as a way of frightening the Chinese is nothing but a joke that shows the stupidity, cruelty and failure to understand their own limitations," Maj. Gen. Peng Guangqian of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences was quoted saying by the China News Service and other state media.
"Firing tracer bullets is a type of provocation; it's firing the first shot," he said. "Were Japan to dare to fire tracers, which is to say fire the first shot, then China wouldn't stint on responding and not allow them to fire the second shot."
China then released photos of its East Fleet 052 destroyer during live fire exercises in the disputed area. The maneuvers involved both its East and South Fleets, simulating actual combat scenarios. Including multiple jet fighters and surface vessels, The South China Morning Post reports it as the first time naval air forces employed air-to-air missiles so far out to sea.
The second massive drill involving the South Fleet January 8, included Hong-6 bombers flying eight hour runs while evading radar and electromagnetic interference as they'd encounter in combat. One Beijing based naval expert said the drills would only increase in frequency and scope, and include other factions of the People's Army.
That appears to be accurate as China's also announced its army aviation unit of attack helicopters will shift from a logistics mission in preparation for combat.
The Times of India quotes the PLA Daily, China's official military newspaper:
The unit will work on major missions such as long-distance tasks, large scale offshore operations, attack coordination with other units and large scale airborne operations, it said, adding that the unit will also aim to improve its operation capability based on IT technologies.
The English PLA Daily army section has several announcements related to its helicopter units, their accelerated training, and even troops psychological readiness for "military transportation in high-tech wars".
Finally, because war preparation takes many forms, China's Communist Party news site the Global Times reports Beijing's new subway lines are fully online and able to withstand chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks. The tunnels have gates that form a seal between below ground and the street.
From the Global Times:
Jiang Hao, an engineer from the 4th Engineer Design & Research Institute of General Staff Department, said that the gates for civil defense have already been used in the subway in cities like Nanjing in Jiangsu Province and Shenyang in Liaoning Province.
"The new facilities also have other defensive capabilities like emergency communication equipment at each station, which makes effective communication possible during a conflict," Jiang said at the conference.
Of course, this may all be a matter of course as China exercises its financial ability and modernizes its military and infrastructure.
But there is little chance the disagreement over the disputed islands will quiet down any time soon with such intransigent claims of ownership coming from both countries. The feud also arrives as Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is eager to demonstrate a more assertive Japanese presence in the area.
With entirely new regional dynamics at work, it's difficult to say how much of this back-and-forth is posturing, and how much is some kind of mad inexorable WWI-like slide toward the unthinkable.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fareastfilms.com%2FcmsAdmin%2Fuploads%2Fadmiral1.jpg&hash=58912529b7e6aa4f421c81c997c8ba6c29c91924)
Whatever image you posted is not showing up for me. :unsure:
It's chock full of heady Yamamoto goodness.
Some CNN execs are giddy with excitement right now. They're probably calling up their Chinese and Japanese contacts, and letting them know that the other side is just posturing, and will back down in the face of aggression.
The US had better be ready to nuke China.
:huh: If we nuke China, who will buy our debt? The shit will really hit the fan if that happens.
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2013, 08:49:33 AM
:huh: If we nuke China, who will buy our debt? The shit will really hit the fan if that happens.
Yeah, but we could write off all the debt they already hold.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2013, 08:52:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2013, 08:49:33 AM
:huh: If we nuke China, who will buy our debt? The shit will really hit the fan if that happens.
Yeah, but we could write off all the debt they already hold.
:hmm:
Corrupt government? All signs pointing to the country growing old before it grows rich? Look! Shiny nationalist anti-Japanese jangly keys!
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2013, 08:49:33 AM
:huh: If we nuke China, who will buy our debt? The shit will really hit the fan if that happens.
Forget the debt, who's going to make our stuff?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2013, 08:52:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2013, 08:49:33 AM
:huh: If we nuke China, who will buy our debt? The shit will really hit the fan if that happens.
Yeah, but we could write off all the debt they already hold.
who would you borrow from then? Not many national piggy banks that can float America along.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 22, 2013, 09:13:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2013, 08:49:33 AM
:huh: If we nuke China, who will buy our debt? The shit will really hit the fan if that happens.
Forget the debt, who's going to make our stuff?
South East Asia is already taking over from China on that front with India and then even Africa waiting in the wings.
Lol :D
If the views of guys like this predominate within the Chinese military they need to get a grip on reality.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-colonel-raises-nuclear-spectre-20130122-2d56p.html
Quote from: Neil on January 22, 2013, 08:47:15 AM
The US had better be ready to nuke China.
I wonder if China really has second strike capabilities in the face of a US attack.
Chinese dress uniforms really are starting to look more western.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2013, 10:59:25 AM
I wonder if China really has second strike capabilities in the face of a US attack.
Let's not test that.
Japan is clearly leveraging the fact that not only are their fighters better, their fighters are at least a full generation better than the Chinese ones.
Quote from: Viking on January 22, 2013, 12:31:58 PM
Japan is clearly leveraging the fact that not only are their fighters better, their fighters are at least a full generation better than the Chinese ones.
They're nowhere near as good as a flying T-72, though :contract:
If Japan and China start trading blows, how do they stack up against one another (assuming at the moment that everyone else remain uninvolved)?
Quote from: Jacob on January 22, 2013, 01:37:05 PM
If Japan and China start trading blows, how do they stack up against one another (assuming at the moment that everyone else remain uninvolved)?
They really can't hurt one another that much. It's like kids with nerf bats.
Considering we have a number of major bases on Okinawa, being so close to China and the disputed islands...I think it is nearly impossible that we would not be involved.
Unless China were to ignore any Japanese assets operating out of Naha.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 22, 2013, 02:16:27 PM
Considering we have a number of major bases on Okinawa, being so close to China and the disputed islands...I think it is nearly impossible that we would not be involved.
Unless China were to ignore any Japanese assets operating out of Naha.
I'm thinking less of a full out war situation and more of a both sides send assets to the islands to shoot at each other and try to drive the other side off.
I wonder what would happen if Japan would declare its intent to get nuclear weapons. It's not really feasible to put them under Iran or North Korea style sanctions after all. ;)
Quote from: Zanza on January 22, 2013, 02:24:56 PM
I wonder what would happen if Japan would declare its intent to get nuclear weapons. It's not really feasible to put them under Iran or North Korea style sanctions after all. ;)
Same thing that would happen when India and Pakistan got them.
They could also go with the Israeli option.
I think the whole point of Japan not having nukes, is that we have basically promised that we would use our nukes in any situation that make it practical(Hod forbid) for Japan to use them.
If Japan lost that kind of faith in our alliance, and we let that faith be lost...do we really have an alliance left?
Most analyses I've read of Japan and nukes is that it's rooted in their horror at being the sole target.
Well, if D-Day had not been successful, Germany probably would have gotten their share as well.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 22, 2013, 02:46:00 PM
Well, if D-Day had not been successful, Germany probably would have gotten their share as well.
Still, what Yi said. Maybe it would take another generation dying out before they're open to the idea.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 22, 2013, 02:24:56 PM
I wonder what would happen if Japan would declare its intent to get nuclear weapons. It's not really feasible to put them under Iran or North Korea style sanctions after all. ;)
Same thing that would happen when India and Pakistan got them.
They could also go with the Israeli option.
But Japan is a party to the NNPT, whereas all three of those non-signatory countries have quite 'legally' built nuclear weapons
So I expect much of the effective opposition to such a move would be internal whether from peace activists, anti-nuclear/bomb survivors groups or those mounting legal challenges as Japan would have to break a major treaty obligation, unless it went through the process of withdrawing from the treaty first, something only N.Korea has done.
Of the two, I think I dislike Japanese more. Can't wait for China to curbstomp them.
Quote from: derspiess on January 22, 2013, 12:33:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 22, 2013, 12:31:58 PM
Japan is clearly leveraging the fact that not only are their fighters better, their fighters are at least a full generation better than the Chinese ones.
They're nowhere near as good as a flying T-72, though :contract:
the legend of sir hockey strikes again :D That one keeps on giving, doesn't it?
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2013, 03:34:51 PM
Of the two, I think I dislike Japanese more. Can't wait for China to curbstomp them.
Don't worry. We already knew you were stupid.
Besides, haven't you read all those articles about how Chinese people mistreat gays?
Quote from: mongers on January 22, 2013, 02:57:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 22, 2013, 02:24:56 PM
I wonder what would happen if Japan would declare its intent to get nuclear weapons. It's not really feasible to put them under Iran or North Korea style sanctions after all. ;)
Same thing that would happen when India and Pakistan got them.
They could also go with the Israeli option.
But Japan is a party to the NNPT, whereas all three of those non-signatory countries have quite 'legally' built nuclear weapons
So I expect much of the effective opposition to such a move would be internal whether from peace activists, anti-nuclear/bomb survivors groups or those mounting legal challenges as Japan would have to break a major treaty obligation, unless it went through the process of withdrawing from the treaty first, something only N.Korea has done.
Withdrawal from the Treaty can be done quite legally with three months' notice and a statement of reasons in the event of a grave threat to national security.
Quote from: Neil on January 22, 2013, 04:27:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2013, 03:34:51 PM
Of the two, I think I dislike Japanese more. Can't wait for China to curbstomp them.
Don't worry. We already knew you were stupid.
Besides, haven't you read all those articles about how Chinese people mistreat gays?
Especially the PLA. Those guys make the Iranians look like LGBTLOLWTF activists.
Quote from: derspiess on January 22, 2013, 04:36:55 PM
Especially the PLA. Those guys make the Iranians look like LGBTLOLWTF activists.
There are no homosexuals in Iran to be mistreated.
Quote from: Warspite on January 22, 2013, 04:35:35 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 22, 2013, 02:57:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 22, 2013, 02:24:56 PM
I wonder what would happen if Japan would declare its intent to get nuclear weapons. It's not really feasible to put them under Iran or North Korea style sanctions after all. ;)
Same thing that would happen when India and Pakistan got them.
They could also go with the Israeli option.
But Japan is a party to the NNPT, whereas all three of those non-signatory countries have quite 'legally' built nuclear weapons
So I expect much of the effective opposition to such a move would be internal whether from peace activists, anti-nuclear/bomb survivors groups or those mounting legal challenges as Japan would have to break a major treaty obligation, unless it went through the process of withdrawing from the treaty first, something only N.Korea has done.
Withdrawal from the Treaty can be done quite legally with three months' notice and a statement of reasons in the event of a grave threat to national security.
That's what North Korea did IIRC.
I think North Korea retroactively withdrew after they'd already been busted.
Yeah, Beeb. We're not buying your DPRK apologist crap :angry:
Russia is supposedly selling backfire bombers to China.
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-buys-tu-22m3-david-cenciotti-the-aviationist-2013-1
Quote from: derspiess on January 22, 2013, 04:36:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 22, 2013, 04:27:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2013, 03:34:51 PM
Of the two, I think I dislike Japanese more. Can't wait for China to curbstomp them.
Don't worry. We already knew you were stupid.
Besides, haven't you read all those articles about how Chinese people mistreat gays?
Especially the PLA. Those guys make the Iranians look like LGBTLOLWTF activists.
Abuse of gays not in name of a religion don't interest Marty.
Man, that guy can't even get being a whiny wannabe-hipster faggot right.
I would guess Mart dislikes Japan because he views it as a US puppet, and since he dislikes the US because we allow some of our gays to marry (unlike Poland where none of the gays are allowed to marry), he dislikes Japan by extension. :hmm:
He's just used to kowtowing to dictatorships. It is in a polack's blood.
Or he's scared the Foxconn factory will be bombed.
No way would Japan get nukes, they're already paranoid enough about nuclear power plants.
If it came down to all out mass-murdering war though they could do nuke level damage with an attack on the 3 gorges.
QuoteOf the two, I think I dislike Japanese more. Can't wait for China to curbstomp them
You hate a land with a long history of man-love and is culturally and legally one of the more LGBT tolerant countries out there over one which until recently put its gays in camps and still stamps down on any attempts at organisation?
Quote from: derspiess on January 22, 2013, 12:33:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 22, 2013, 12:31:58 PM
Japan is clearly leveraging the fact that not only are their fighters better, their fighters are at least a full generation better than the Chinese ones.
They're nowhere near as good as a flying T-72, though :contract:
While it doesn't match the flying T-72 for firepower and armor the F-15 has superior avionics not to mention superior thrust to weight ratio.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2013, 01:43:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 22, 2013, 01:37:05 PM
If Japan and China start trading blows, how do they stack up against one another (assuming at the moment that everyone else remain uninvolved)?
They really can't hurt one another that much. It's like kids with nerf bats.
To get a better picture of the situation, imagine that one kid has a 20-foot long nerf bat, but it's in such bad condition that if he actually swings it, probably about 3/4 of it falls off, and the other kid has a really really high quality but rather fragile mechanical pencil.
Quote from: dps on January 23, 2013, 12:45:14 AMTo get a better picture of the situation, imagine that one kid has a 20-foot long nerf bat, but it's in such bad condition that if he actually swings it, probably about 3/4 of it falls off, and the other kid has a really really high quality but rather fragile mechanical pencil.
This seems to imply that the Japanese and Chinese won't be able to actually kill one another in any numbers, which I doubt to be honest. I mean, even the North Koreans manage to kill South Koreans every so often.
Are there any operational or logistical constraints that prevent either party from projecting force to the islands in question? And once they're there, is there anything that makes it so that they can't actually kill one another?
I get that neither side possesses anything like American capabilities, and that a scenario where either side utterly destroys the other country's infrastructure and ability to wage war is unlikely.
However, if there's some sort of Falklands War like scenario, how do the sides stack up against each other? If both sides send some sort of task force to the area and they start trying to kill each other, who will come out on top?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2013, 07:18:07 PM
Russia is supposedly selling backfire bombers to China.
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-buys-tu-22m3-david-cenciotti-the-aviationist-2013-1
QuoteThe deal struck with Russia includes 36 aircraft
:yeahright:
Quote from: Caliga on January 22, 2013, 07:52:52 PM
I would guess Mart dislikes Japan because he views it as a US puppet, and since he dislikes the US because we allow some of our gays to marry (unlike Poland where none of the gays are allowed to marry), he dislikes Japan by extension. :hmm:
You guess wrong.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 23, 2013, 01:05:26 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2013, 07:18:07 PM
Russia is supposedly selling backfire bombers to China.
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-buys-tu-22m3-david-cenciotti-the-aviationist-2013-1
QuoteThe deal struck with Russia includes 36 aircraft
:yeahright:
That's a lot of bombers.
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2013, 03:37:47 AM
You guess wrong.
So what's the real reason? It's weird to hear someone in the West say they favor China over Japan. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2013, 07:54:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on January 23, 2013, 03:37:47 AM
You guess wrong.
So what's the real reason? It's weird to hear someone in the West say they favor China over Japan. :hmm:
I think I found the problem.
:blush:
Quote from: mongers on January 22, 2013, 02:57:11 PM
But Japan is a party to the NNPT, whereas all three of those non-signatory countries have quite 'legally' built nuclear weapons
So I expect much of the effective opposition to such a move would be internal whether from peace activists, anti-nuclear/bomb survivors groups or those mounting legal challenges as Japan would have to break a major treaty obligation, unless it went through the process of withdrawing from the treaty first, something only N.Korea has done.
I read somewhere that Japanese possession of nuclear weaponry is not considered unconstitutional, as the Japanese Supreme Court determined in the late 1960's that a "nuclear deterrent" is defensive in nature and therefore not defined as offensive, particularly in the event that the United States abrogated its treaty responsibilities of providing for Japanese nuclear security.
Japan isn't culturally ready to have nuclear weapons, or really, it seems to me, even to fight this war.
Being attacked might wake them from it. I hope cooler heads prevail in Beijing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2013, 08:17:22 AM
I read somewhere that Japanese possession of nuclear weaponry is not considered unconstitutional, as the Japanese Supreme Court determined in the late 1960's that a "nuclear deterrent" is defensive in nature and therefore not defined as offensive, particularly in the event that the United States abrogated its treaty responsibilities of providing for Japanese nuclear security.
I think if we abrogated our treaty responsibilities, the whole pacifist constitution we basically forced on them is going out the window.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 23, 2013, 09:16:51 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2013, 08:17:22 AM
I read somewhere that Japanese possession of nuclear weaponry is not considered unconstitutional, as the Japanese Supreme Court determined in the late 1960's that a "nuclear deterrent" is defensive in nature and therefore not defined as offensive, particularly in the event that the United States abrogated its treaty responsibilities of providing for Japanese nuclear security.
I think if we abrogated our treaty responsibilities, the whole pacifist constitution we basically forced on them is going out the window.
That's pretty much what they said.
It's pretty meaningless anyway. The Nips already recognize self defense as consistent with their constitution, and only wacko renegade countries fight wars of conquest in this day and age.
Quote from: Jacob on January 23, 2013, 01:05:02 AM
Quote from: dps on January 23, 2013, 12:45:14 AMTo get a better picture of the situation, imagine that one kid has a 20-foot long nerf bat, but it's in such bad condition that if he actually swings it, probably about 3/4 of it falls off, and the other kid has a really really high quality but rather fragile mechanical pencil.
This seems to imply that the Japanese and Chinese won't be able to actually kill one another in any numbers, which I doubt to be honest. I mean, even the North Koreans manage to kill South Koreans every so often.
Are there any operational or logistical constraints that prevent either party from projecting force to the islands in question? And once they're there, is there anything that makes it so that they can't actually kill one another?
I get that neither side possesses anything like American capabilities, and that a scenario where either side utterly destroys the other country's infrastructure and ability to wage war is unlikely.
However, if there's some sort of Falklands War like scenario, how do the sides stack up against each other? If both sides send some sort of task force to the area and they start trying to kill each other, who will come out on top?
Oh, sure both sides could wipe out any force the other sends to the disputed area (who would win would depend on exactly what forces were sent, as well as other factors), but short of China nuking Japan, neither can really do much damage to the other's home territory, I don't think.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 11:08:57 AM
It's pretty meaningless anyway. The Nips already recognize self defense as consistent with their constitution, and only wacko renegade countries fight wars of conquest in this day and age.
There is a pretty big gap between self-defense and wars of conquest. The Japanese, and others, see any kind of projection of military power outside Japanese territory as contrary to their constitution. Hell, there was a minor flap when Japan wanted to send warships to protect their own merchants from Somali pirates. They are absolutely not allowed to deploy their military to defend other nations, as NATO routinely does, nor are they allowed to build the assets required to do so[1]. Therefore, throwing off the pacifist provisions would not be meaningless or merely symbolic.
[1] Hence the reason their helicarriers are "destroyers".
I agree with everything you've written Moldy, but by the same token I think the subtext on the discussion about Japan being compelled to rewrite their constitution was the risk of them turning into murdering, conquering dickheads again.
The situation continues to escalate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324445904578285442601856314.html
QuoteUpdated February 5, 2013, 12:02 p.m. ET
Japan Accuses China of Aggressive Military Moves
By YUKA HAYASHI in Tokyo and JEREMY PAGE in Beijing
Japan accused China's navy of locking weapons-guiding radar onto Japanese naval forces twice in the past three weeks—a serious escalation in the two countries' long-running territorial dispute that has heightened fears of a looming military conflict between the two Asian giants.
Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera spoke to reporters Tuesday.
"These were cases that could have led to an extremely dangerous situation with just one wrong move," Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters in a hastily arranged news conference in Tokyo Tuesday evening.
Mr. Onodera said that Chinese frigate ships aimed fire-control radar at a Japanese naval destroyer on Jan. 30 and a navy helicopter on Jan. 19. While neither incident involved firing of shots—a step that can follow use of such radar—the minister described the incidents as "highly unusual behavior" that occurs "only in extreme situations."
"We intend to push China very hard to restrain from engaging in such dangerous act," Mr. Onodera said.
The worsening dispute has drawn particular concern in the U.S., which has 37,000 troops stationed in Japan, with a majority on the island of Okinawa, just 260 miles from the disputed area.
Maj. Cathy Wilkinson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Tuesday morning that the U.S.'s commitments toward the islands were "longstanding and have not changed." A 1960 bilateral security treaty between the two countries would commit the American military to help defend both Japanese territory and islands administered by Japan, including the East China Sea islands in dispute.
"We have seen and are concerned by the reports of this incident," Maj. Wilkinson said. "We have long encouraged all sides to avoid steps that raise tensions and increase the risk of miscalculations that could undermine peace and stability in the region. We encourage claimants to resolve this matter peacefully through dialogue."
U.S. officials have said privately they have no desire to enter a war over a few rocks with little in the way of economic value—and the Obama administration has made clear it is intent on winding down the wars the U.S. is involved in, not starting new ones. Any military action with China over the islands would devastate the world economy and serve little purpose, those officials have said.
The latest development throws cold water on the emerging hopes that Japan and China may be close to resuming diplomatic talks to ease the tensions that have strained the ties between Asia's two largest economies since this past fall. The long-standing dispute flared up in September after the Japanese government purchased some of the islands from a private owner, triggering Beijing's anger. Last week, a senior lawmaker from Japan's ruling coalition visited Beijing and personally handed a letter from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to China leader Xi Jinping, raising expectations that the two leaders might be open to holding summit talks.
The Chinese government had no immediate public comment on the Japanese government's accusations.
Ni Lexiong, an expert on maritime and military issues at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, said Japan's claims were likely overblown, and intended to put international pressure on China to scale back its maritime patrols in the area. "The Japanese side did not explain what happened before these incidents—what caused the action from the Chinese ships," he said. "If this was between navy ships on both sides, then it's normal activity. I think they're exaggerating the incidents."
Independent analysts portrayed the behavior as more provocative. Beijing's use of fire-control radar "is certainly regarded as an 'escalatory' act because it infers that someone could be about to start shooting at you," said Richard Scott, IHS Jane's naval consultant.
Tokyo on Tuesday lodged complaints with Beijing through two channels, the Chinese embassy in Tokyo and China's foreign ministry in Beijing. Mr. Onodera explained that the decision to complain and unveil the tussles came after Japan analyzed the record and data and determined that illuminator radar used to search targets was indeed used in these cases.
Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida told reporters that the Chinese government responded to the protests "that they would first like to confirm the facts."
The addition of warships is the latest new dimension added to the tussle, which recently spread to the air with the introduction of military jets. Until now, the confrontation mostly took the form of a cat-and-mouse chase between civilian patrol ships, with Japanese Coast Guard cutters trying to fend off boats from China's maritime and fishery patrol agencies from the territorial waters around the contested islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.
While Chinese naval flotillas passed through Japan's Okinawa island chain at close distance in recent months, Japanese defense officials had stressed that Tokyo kept its naval ships at distance to avoid unintended clashes from escalating into military conflict.
Japan's defense ministry said in its Tuesday news release that the fire-control radar that targeted a Japanese naval destroyer—the 4,400-ton JS Yudachi based in the Sasebo port—was launched from the Jianwei II class missile frigate, a smaller ship. Targeting the helicopter that had taken off from the JS Onami, a 4,600-ton Yokosuka-based destroyer, was a Jianwei I class frigate.
Japan didn't disclose where exactly the incidents occurred in the East China Sea, and didn't say how close they were to the disputed islands.
"This was shocking behavior," said Sugio Takahashi, a senior fellow at Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, a research arm of the defense ministry. "It was an intentional act aimed at escalating the situation or provoking Japan. I don't think there is a consensus within China that there is no place for the military in this dispute."
Some military analysts said it was hard to tell if this was a top-down strategy from China's military, or a dangerous improvisation on the high seas.
"What's unclear is whether the captain of the PLA Navy ship was acting of his own volition," said James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane's Defense Weekly. "It's a situation where the room for maneuver is narrowing—and acts like this don't help calm the waters."
The new tensions on the water follow worrisome exchanges that took place in the sky near the disputed islands. On Dec. 13, a Chinese maritime patrol plane flew into the airspace above the islands undetected by Japanese radar, prompting Japan to scramble eight F-15 fighters from Japan's air force. On Jan. 10, China scrambled its own military jets after Japanese fighters chased after a Chinese patrol flying near the disputed islands, Japanese officials say.
Within weeks of the Dec. 13 airspace intrusion, the first in decades by China, Prime Minister Abe unveiled the first increase in Japan's military spending in 11 years. In the budget was a new radar to replace the dated equipment near the islands that had missed the Chinese plane. A hangar at an Okinawa airbase to house radar-equipped reconnaissance planes was also added.
"We face continued provocations against our inherent land, waters, skies and sovereignty," Mr. Abe told troops this past on Saturday as he surveyed a military base in Okinawa. He pledged to "confront the clear and present danger."
As officials from the two nations stepped up their rhetoric against each other, Washington has grown increasingly worried.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have dedicated significant time to try to diffuse the dispute. It has been a delicate balancing act for the U.S. as it refocuses its attention toward Asia, under the Obama administration's military plans.
Defense analysts have cautioned that if the U.S. forces Japan to back down in the island dispute it will weaken its strongest ally in Asia. And some U.S. officials want Japan to be taking a more prominent and multilateral role in Asian security affairs. Forcing Tokyo to back down over the East China Sea could make persuading Japan to cooperate on other security matters—like joint exercises with the South Koreans—more difficult.
More importantly, analysts have warned that forcing Japan to back down could potentially give China a boost in its territorial claims in the South China Sea, disputes in which U.S. officials believe China is overreaching.
—Julian E. Barnes in Washington contributed to this article.
QuoteJapan's defense ministry said in its Tuesday news release that the fire-control radar that targeted a Japanese naval destroyer—the 4,400-ton JS Yudachi based in the Sasebo port—was launched from the Jianwei II class missile frigate, a smaller ship.
:wacko: The fire control radar was launched?? Where the hell do they find defense corespondents anyway?
Couldn't it just be a translation issue?
Quote from: HVC on January 22, 2013, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 22, 2013, 08:52:35 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 22, 2013, 08:49:33 AM
:huh: If we nuke China, who will buy our debt? The shit will really hit the fan if that happens.
Yeah, but we could write off all the debt they already hold.
who would you borrow from then? Not many national piggy banks that can float America along.
People who fear being bathed in cleansing fire.
Quote from: CdMI read somewhere that Japanese possession of nuclear weaponry is not considered unconstitutional, as the Japanese Supreme Court determined in the late 1960's that a "nuclear deterrent" is defensive in nature and therefore not defined as offensive, particularly in the event that the United States abrogated its treaty responsibilities of providing for Japanese nuclear security.
Huh. I guess some countries don't have prohibitions on advisory opinions, unless the Japanese had an active nuclear program at some point? :unsure:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 05:13:59 PM
Huh. I guess some countries don't have prohibitions on advisory opinions, unless the Japanese had an active nuclear program at some point? :unsure:
What's your point?
No point, just an aside. The USSC is not allowed to give advisory opinions of that nature.
There was substantial debate within the Japanese government in the late 60s concerning nuclear armament, and the government did its due diligence in determining what could and could not be possible under their constitution, which specifically prohibits weapons of an offensive nature.
i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 07:11:50 AM
i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?
Let me explain the situation.
Everybody here backs the Japs on this except Martinus. Which clearly proves justice is on Japan's side.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 07:11:50 AM
i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?
Because Fuck China, half of Asia is not theirs.
Quote from: Tamas on February 07, 2013, 07:45:13 AMLet me explain the situation.
Everybody here backs the Japs on this except Martinus. Which clearly proves justice is on Japan's side.
well, naturally, most on this board hold anti-china views (or in the case of a collective, pro-japanese), so of course that would be the case. but that does not make it right!
honestly, japan should have squashed this whole incident by retreating way back when it started. i imagine they figured the whole incident would settle itself; when it did not, and their populace awoke to the issue, it was already too late
Japan should have squashed the whole incident by wiping out the Chinese race back in the 30s and 40s when they had the chance. But now we're stuck with China as an enemy of all civilization.
Quote from: Neil on February 07, 2013, 08:36:39 AM
Japan should have squashed the whole incident by wiping out the Chinese race back in the 30s and 40s when they had the chance. But now we're stuck with China as an enemy of all civilization.
naturally. after all, nixon recognizes what true china is ;)
A weapon to be wielded against the Soviets that should have been discarded after the Cold War.
:weep:
They are what they are, and their interests are fundamentally opposed to our own. And you know, if they had the advancement of humanity on their mind, I could live with that, but they don't.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 07:11:50 AM
i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?
Incorrect.
That Japan formally annexed the islands in the same year they won a war with China was a horrible (for the current situation, irrelevant in the past) concidence. They had been investigating ownership of the islands for years before that and found that nobody owned them.
What irks me about the situation is the way both sides go on about the islands being integral territory. They're really not. Forgetting whether they're Japanese or (lol) Chinese for the moment, whichever side they belong to they're minor rocks on the arse end of nowhere.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 07:11:50 AM
i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?
Why would they belong to the PRC or the ROC? Neither of these entities existed in 1895, so obviously that would not be reverting back to their original owner.
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2013, 09:30:48 AMIncorrect.
That Japan formally annexed the islands in the same year they won a war with China was a horrible (for the current situation, irrelevant in the past) concidence. They had been investigating ownership of the islands for years before that and found that nobody owned them.
What irks me about the situation is the way both sides go on about the islands being integral territory. They're really not. Forgetting whether they're Japanese or (lol) Chinese for the moment, whichever side they belong to they're minor rocks on the arse end of nowhere.
now tyr, i realize you've gone full native. i understand your position, and your quick response. really, i do--there must be a number of papers and reports on these islands that you hear of daily. i am not as worldly as you, tyr, however, i must point out that china has had much longer presence on those islands than japan, and that japan seized those islands in an aggressive war against china in 1894-1895. you may think they had already owned them, and only made the official announcement conveniently after they had defeated a major Power located within their vicinity, but just like comfort women, Japanese truth is not so easily reached
Quote from: Maximus on February 07, 2013, 09:39:40 AM
Why would they belong to the PRC or the ROC? Neither of these entities existed in 1895, so obviously that would not be reverting back to their original owner.
oh for fu-- sake
i'm cutting this debate right in the bud, because we've attempted this before
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 09:41:55 AM
i must point out that china has had much longer presence on those islands than japan
You got any documentation? I thought these islands were historically not inhabited.
Quote, and that japan seized those islands in an aggressive war against china in 1894-1895.
What difference does that make?
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 09:42:52 AM
oh for fu-- sake
i'm cutting this debate right in the bud, because we've attempted this before
Good move, it's a ridiculous idea.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 09:41:55 AM
now tyr, i realize you've gone full native. i understand your position, and your quick response. really, i do--there must be a number of papers and reports on these islands that you hear of daily. i am not as worldly as you, tyr, however, i must point out that china has had much longer presence on those islands than japan, and that japan seized those islands in an aggressive war against china in 1894-1895. you may think they had already owned them, and only made the official announcement conveniently after they had defeated a major Power located within their vicinity, but just like comfort women, Japanese truth is not so easily reached
Nope, no propeganda or anything. This is just a case of Japan clearly being in the right. With the Liancourts and Kurils things are more complicated but the Senkakus are a pretty hard and fast case of Chinese dickery.
The islands were never Chinese.
Things are complicated a little bit by the traditional Chinese world view. It was rather different to the modern/western world view where we view the world as a bunch of different nations. To China the world was China, its just the emperor was generous/didn't want to waste his time governing barbarians/whatever. China didn't interact with foreign countries as equals, it expected them to pay tribute to it.
The islands were known about by the Chinese of a few hundred years ago. The route between China and Okinawa was pretty well navigated and they were used as signposts along the way. Since China ruled the world they of course belonged to China...in much the same way that Japan itself, Korea, Vietnam, England, etc... belonged to China.
China never actually bothered to do anything with the islands though. Since it felt the world was Chinese it never felt the need to go through actually claiming the islands and doing anything with them. Nor did anyone else as they were just irrelevant rocks, in the late 19th century Japan went through the proper channels of checking they didn't belong to anyone then claimed them as many other small rocks were claimed by other countries in the same period.
They remained Japanese ever since, excluding the American occupation, they weren't covered under the treaties demanding the return of lands Japan took from China as Japan hadn't taken them from China. Considering they're irrelevant rocks and how Japan was having much more significant possessions taken away from it you'd think that giving them back to China would be a pretty uncontroversial move if they had truly once been Chinese, no?
And comfort women? Eh?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 09:46:13 AMI thought these islands were historically not inhabited.
What difference does that make?
they were not inhabited, indeed, by neither japan nor china. now, which claimed the islands first is the true question
might does not make right, i guess
Quote from: MaximusGood move, it's a ridiculous idea.
come now, i've realized the futility of arguing this issue with you given the past debate, and acknowledge no mutual consensus will be reached, and you respond with "hehe, i win," - that's not very sportsmanlike!
Quote from: TyrNope, no propeganda or anything. This is just a case of Japan clearly being in the right. With the Liancourts and Kurils things are more complicated but the Senkakus are a pretty hard and fast case of Chinese dickery.
The islands were never Chinese.
Things are complicated a little bit by the traditional Chinese world view. It was rather different to the modern/western world view where we view the world as a bunch of different nations. To China the world was China, its just the emperor was generous/didn't want to waste his time governing barbarians/whatever. China didn't interact with foreign countries as equals, it expected them to pay tribute to it.
The islands were known about by the Chinese of a few hundred years ago. The route between China and Okinawa was pretty well navigated and they were used as signposts along the way. Since China ruled the world they of course belonged to China...in much the same way that Japan itself, Korea, Vietnam, England, etc... belonged to China.
China never actually bothered to do anything with the islands though. Since it felt the world was Chinese it never felt the need to go through actually claiming the islands and doing anything with them. Nor did anyone else as they were just irrelevant rocks, in the late 19th century Japan went through the proper channels of checking they didn't belong to anyone then claimed them as many other small rocks were claimed by other countries in the same period.
They remained Japanese ever since, excluding the American occupation, they weren't covered under the treaties demanding the return of lands Japan took from China as Japan hadn't taken them from China. Considering they're irrelevant rocks and how Japan was having much more significant possessions taken away from it you'd think that giving them back to China would be a pretty uncontroversial move if they had truly once been Chinese, no?
And comfort women? Eh?
never mind on the comfort women, just a silly remark on my part
now tyr, this is now a case of, erm.. the world belonging to china... this is a case of islands that were visited throughout history by china, and recognized as legitimate chinese territory, just as all those little islands off all those countries in the world are generally recognized as belonging to the nations that claim them. - Not to imperial Powers that annex them during a war and then a hundred years later, because they never handed them over, they state those islands are theirs. there are no official documents on many islands that exist off the coast of a Power, which are rightfully considered to belong to such Power
now, i realize this issue will never, ever, be settled and that you will likely continue to believe japan rightfully owns these worthless, uninhabited islands. i will point out that the japanese ambassador to china, in 2012, informed the government that it would cause a great issue between japan and china, and he was immediately replaced because of it. your initial reaction may be: "well of course! japan owns the islands, why should she hand them over to china, regardless of how unimportant they are?" ..and you would be acting just like every other japanese citizen in this endless strife over a handful of pointless islands..
so i guess i've nothing further to add
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 10:20:33 AM
might does not make right, i guess
Might very much makes right when the loser signs a treaty acknowledging the winner's territorial claims.
Though I'm getting the sense from Squeeze's posts that this island was annexed unilaterally, not handed over in a treaty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 10:24:17 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 10:20:33 AM
might does not make right, i guess
Might very much makes right when the loser signs a treaty acknowledging the winner's territorial claims.
Though I'm getting the sense from Squeeze's posts that this island was annexed unilaterally, not handed over in a treaty.
i don't know who squeeze is, sorry.. tyr? here, an enjoyable read. i thought not to quote it or add it to my argument as i did not see how it would really convince anyone who is iron enough to remain unconviceable
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/
when a loser signs a treaty, or consents to a decision, that a Party has enforced upon it through force, that does not make right ... surely you can see how awkward it would be if that were the case
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 10:20:33 AM
come now, i've realized the futility of arguing this issue with you given the past debate, and acknowledge no mutual consensus will be reached, and you respond with "hehe, i win," - that's not very sportsmanlike!
I read that as a "lalala I'm not listening".
If it was intended to be an "let's agree to disagree" then that is my mistake and I apologize.
Quote from: Maximus on February 07, 2013, 10:39:02 AMI read that as a "lalala I'm not listening".
If it was intended to be an "let's agree to disagree" then that is my mistake and I apologize.
np
The islands had nothing to do with the Sino-Japanese war. In the 19th century not every bit of land was claimed by a country the way things are today (Antarctica semi-excluded), there were lots of islands that belonged to no one.
Hell, throughout most of its history China barely even bothered with Taiwan let alone the Senkakus. The claims you see of them being Chinese territory down to 17th century sources and all that are just a mixture of nonsense and ignoring the historic Chinese worldview.
But even ignoring all this....they're legally Japanese anyway. The WW2 peace treaty spoke of "such minor islands as we determine", and the US occupied the Senkakus as part of Okinawa so clearly they were included in the determined small islands. Even if we pretend they once were Chinese they clearly haven't been for over a century and are legally Japanese.
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2013, 11:04:32 AM
The islands had nothing to do with the Sino-Japanese war. In the 19th century not every bit of land was claimed by a country the way things are today (Antarctica semi-excluded), there were lots of islands that belonged to no one.
Hell, throughout most of its history China barely even bothered with Taiwan let alone the Senkakus. The claims you see of them being Chinese territory down to 17th century sources and all that are just a mixture of nonsense and ignoring the historic Chinese worldview.
But even ignoring all this....they're legally Japanese anyway. The WW2 peace treaty spoke of "such minor islands as we determine", and the US occupied the Senkakus as part of Okinawa so clearly they weren't included in the determined small islands. Even if we pretend they once were Chinese they clearly haven't been for over a century and are legally Japanese.
i'll take that you didn't bother to read the link i posted, nor other research on the issue... taiwan, a province china "barely bothered with," indeed.
the treaty of frankfurt did not decide the issue of alsace-lorraine, and such has not decided the senkaku isles. sometimes, a Power must learn to
let go. especially islands that are not worth... apparently anything
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 11:12:22 AM
sometimes, a Power must learn to let go. especially islands that are not worth... apparently anything
Exactly, China needs to... let...go.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 10:20:33 AM
might does not make right, i guess
Man China is going to have to give back alot of its territory then. I think they should just go with the might makes right thing.
FREE TIBET
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 09:41:55 AMi am not as worldly as you, tyr,
I don't care how many countries he's lived in, calling him worldly is a crime against the English language.
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2013, 04:48:48 PM
FREE TIBET*
*with purchase of second Tibet of equal or greater value
Russian Jets Enter Japanese Airspace
'Japan said Russian fighter jets intruded on its airspace for the first time in five years, raising tensions between the two countries as Tokyo is engaged in a similar tangle with China.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324590904578289590050103704.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-WG773_0207ru_A_20130207090236.jpg&hash=2efd79825c4051b0f3bf01cf0ea2132941aa7a9f)
The Senkakus are worth something: The lives of every man, woman and child in China. Should the Chinese make a move, it is essential to kill at least 99% of them.
Quote from: Neil on February 07, 2013, 08:09:09 PM
The Senkakus are worth something: The lives of every man, woman and child in China. Should the Chinese make a move, it is essential to kill at least 99% of them.
I'm pretty sure even a full strength nuclear first strike wouldn't kill that many.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 07, 2013, 07:07:12 PM
Russian Jets Enter Japanese Airspace
'Japan said Russian fighter jets intruded on its airspace for the first time in five years, raising tensions between the two countries as Tokyo is engaged in a similar tangle with China.'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324590904578289590050103704.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-WG773_0207ru_A_20130207090236.jpg&hash=2efd79825c4051b0f3bf01cf0ea2132941aa7a9f)
So did Russian jets actually enter Japanese airspace or were they just around the occupied islands? The article is vague on which. I very much doubt the Japanese military went into Russian territory however as China is prone to doing in its dispute.
You know what would be nice? A big war between China and Russia - both of the great enemies of humanity killing each other off.
And Poland gets vaporized too.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2013, 09:26:50 PM
And Poland gets vaporized too.
No, it would be better if a Chinese jet, trying to bomb Russia, accidentally bomber Martinus' flat. Sort of like you guys did to the Chinese Embassy in Serbia. That way, Poland can endure and pass more laws about how Jesus is their king and shit like that, annoying Marti from beyond the grave, but sparing us his hateful nonsense.
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2013, 04:48:48 PM
FREE TIBET
why? tibet belongs to china, and only china :P
Quote from: Neil on February 07, 2013, 10:59:17 PM
No, it would be better if a Chinese jet, trying to bomb Russia, accidentally bomber Martinus' flat. Sort of like you guys did to the Chinese Embassy in Serbia.
:yeahright: I think it's been established by now that we bombed the Chinese embassy quite deliberately, and for a good reason. Not that I'm claiming there won't be a good reason to bomb Martinus' flat, mind you.
Buncha softies. If you bomb his flat, there's a high likelihood of death and much lower likelihood of living with painful disfigurement.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2013, 07:11:50 AM
i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?
Part of this has been mentioned before, but...
Given they were included by the USA as part of the Ryukyus and thus under their administration post WWII (as per article III of the Treaty of San Francisco). a situation to which China made no objection (either as the ROC or PRC as far as I can tell) then it seems pretty clear that China's voided whatever historical claims it may have had.
In fact, should Japan renounce it's rights to the Islands it seems logical that they should then revert to the United States as the most recent preceding country to have had administrative control of the area via recognised international treaty (if the USA wants them, of course.) :bowler:
If Japan wants to be ready for war, they need to make more babies 20 years ago.
Japanese births are improving, though- and they don't seem so bad, set against their neighbours :)
Yeah. Japan has birth rate problems but China's problems are on a whole other scale.
I was reading the other day actually that Japan's move towards a declining population was probally wanted and designed for by politicians in the 70s and 80s. A less crowded Japan would be a good thing. They however didn't consider the dodgy implications of getting there.
Hey Seedy, check this out.
You'll especially like the guy who begins talking at 21:15 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nLrO1GI8ZIY
Yeah, well nobody listens to me, so why should they listen to the US Navy?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 09:33:29 AM
Yeah, well nobody listens to me, so why should they listen to the US Navy?
Because the US Navy is relevant?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2013, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 09:33:29 AM
Yeah, well nobody listens to me, so why should they listen to the US Navy?
Because the US Navy is relevant?
Oh no she didn't.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2013, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 09:33:29 AM
Yeah, well nobody listens to me, so why should they listen to the US Navy?
Because the US Navy is relevant?
Because I've been more right than they have been lately.
Now fuck off before I ban you. Neil's probably out to dinner, and won't be back from Applebee's for at least two hours.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2013, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 09:33:29 AM
Yeah, well nobody listens to me, so why should they listen to the US Navy?
Because the US Navy is relevant?
I dunno. I was inspecting one of their dreadnoughts last week, and it seemed quite run down. I'm not sure that the USN is as mighty as it once was.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 06:26:43 PM
Now fuck off before I ban you. Neil's probably out to dinner, and won't be back from Applebee's for at least two hours.
I prefer to eat dinner after six.
Also, I don't think I've ever been to an Applebee's. Is it a typical chain restaurant?
Neil goes to pizza 73.
Yes, I see your commercials.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2013, 06:42:57 PM
Neil goes to pizza 73.
Yes, I see your commercials.
:lol: I don't even know what kind of chain stuff they have up there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 06:53:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2013, 06:42:57 PM
Neil goes to pizza 73.
Yes, I see your commercials.
:lol: I don't even know what kind of chain stuff they have up there.
The Wendy's dollar menu was advertised at a buck eighty nine up there on the commercial. Yes, the redhead commercial.
Fucking shitty monetary policy. I blame Dubya.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 12, 2013, 06:42:57 PM
Neil goes to pizza 73.
Yes, I see your commercials.
That's actually a pizza delivery place. Pretty average, but I've found their hot wings to be excellent for a sports get-together.
There was an Applebee's rather near my place, but I never went there and it got replaced with a sports bar. The location is death to restaurants though. Before it was an Applebee's, it was some kind of Asian-fusion place. I don't even know what Asian-fusion means. It sounds like micegenation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:07:06 PM
Fucking shitty monetary policy. I blame Dubya.
You guys really need to get some dollar coins. After a couple of days in your country, I was walking around with a huge roll of bills in my pocket, thanks to all those worthless dollars.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2013, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:07:06 PM
Fucking shitty monetary policy. I blame Dubya.
You guys really need to get some dollar coins. After a couple of days in your country, I was walking around with a huge roll of bills in my pocket, thanks to all those worthless dollars.
Coins are worse on that front. Yay, lots of useless heavier objects!
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 07:46:43 PM
Coins are worse on that front. Yay, lots of useless heavier objects!
I kinda like the dollar coins. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 07:46:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2013, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:07:06 PM
Fucking shitty monetary policy. I blame Dubya.
You guys really need to get some dollar coins. After a couple of days in your country, I was walking around with a huge roll of bills in my pocket, thanks to all those worthless dollars.
Coins are worse on that front. Yay, lots of useless heavier objects!
Yeah, but they're psychologically easier to ditch, and more difficult to confuse for something of value.
They also work better with vending machines.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2013, 07:54:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 07:46:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2013, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:07:06 PM
Fucking shitty monetary policy. I blame Dubya.
You guys really need to get some dollar coins. After a couple of days in your country, I was walking around with a huge roll of bills in my pocket, thanks to all those worthless dollars.
Coins are worse on that front. Yay, lots of useless heavier objects!
Yeah, but they're psychologically easier to ditch, and more difficult to confuse for something of value.
Well that's true as I do have a tendency to shake off coins.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:53:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 07:46:43 PM
Coins are worse on that front. Yay, lots of useless heavier objects!
I kinda like the dollar coins. :unsure:
Sacagawea or Susan B? Or those presidential abominations? :x
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2013, 07:54:01 PM
They also work better with vending machines.
This is true. Nothing worse than trying to score that last Almond Joy with a shitty dollar the machine won't read, and of course nobody else has one to swap out with you.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 07:55:45 PM
Sacagawea or Susan B? Or those presidential abominations? :x
Sacagawea and the presidents are nice and perfectly weighted. George's bust is perfect on his. :wub:
I like the Sacagawea one with little Jean Baptiste on her back, because it pisses off the anti-diversity derspiess teabagger types to have an Indian chick on US money.
Susan B's are fugly ,25 ripoffs with squirrelly looking Euro-esque border. Doesn't even look like US coinage.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2013, 07:40:11 PMThere was an Applebee's rather near my place, but I never went there and it got replaced with a sports bar. The location is death to restaurants though. Before it was an Applebee's, it was some kind of Asian-fusion place. I don't even know what Asian-fusion means. It sounds like micegenation.
applebee's is a fantastic restaurant for college aged students, cheap, too. i remember taking a west fargo girl out on a first date, and suggested olive garden. she responded, "oh, you don't have to take me to a nice place like that." i smiled. took her there anyway, for, you know, good first impressions :lol:
Since this seems to be the place for China's maritime aggression, I'm putting this here instead of making a new thread.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324685104578386052690151508.html
Quote
CHINA NEWS
March 27, 2013, 8:13 a.m. ET
Chinese Ships Approach Malaysia
China took navy exercises to the farthest reaches of its claims in disputed waters, with four heavily armed ships coming within 50 miles of the coast of Malaysia, a country that has made relatively little noise about Beijing's recent assertiveness in the South China Sea.
China's official Xinhua news agency said the four ships that sailed to the James Shoal—a submerged reef in the South China Sea—on Tuesday included the Jinggangshan, China's largest amphibious landing ship. Experts say the ship is designed for launching attacks on small islands and is the first Chinese naval ship able to carry hovercraft, helicopters, small amphibious boats and an entire battalion of troops.
Chinese navy ships regularly patrol and exercise in the South China Sea but rarely so far south, analysts say.
Beijing considers the reef the southernmost limit of its territorial waters, but Malaysia also claims the areaas part of its territory, and neighboring Brunei has overlapping claims with China in waters near the reef. Malaysian officials didn't respond to requests to comment, and Brunei officials declined to comment Wednesday.
Malaysia and Brunei have taken a less confrontational approach to the territorial dispute than Vietnam and the Philippines in the past two years, and analysts said the Chinese navy's show of force at the James Shoal, which China calls the Zengmu Reef, risked antagonizing both countries.
"Malaysia has been one of the most moderate voices in counseling for cooler heads to prevail when others argue for a hard balancing approach," said Tang Siew Mun, an expert on the South China Sea at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia. "Why would Beijing want to antagonize one of its best friends in the region?" he said, calling the move "a grave strategic mistake."
Brunei's stance on the issue is important because it holds the current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or Asean, which the U.S. and some of its Asian allies have been trying to persuade to take a common stand against China's recent assertive stance on territorial issues. China opposes any attempts to "internationalize" the disputes and says it wants to resolve them with each claimant nation, one by one.
The four Chinese ships appeared on the same day Vietnam accused a Chinese ship of firing on a Vietnamese fishing boat in another disputed area of the South China Sea. China's Defense Ministry denied the accusation but acknowledged that a Chinese navy ship had fired two flares to warn Vietnamese ships to leave waters claimed by China.
China has also denied recent allegations by Japanese officialsthat a Chinese naval ship in January locked weapons-guiding radar onto a ship and a helicopter from Japan's Self Defense Forces near islands in the East China Sea claimed by both Beijing and Tokyo.Still, U.S. and Asian officials say they are growing increasingly concerned about the involvement of China's navy in territorial disputes.
Chinese state media have stepped up reports of the country's maritime activities in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea in the months since Xi Jinping took over as the head of the Communist Party and the military. State media reports said the four-ship "task force" at the James Shoal also included a guided missile destroyer and two guided missile frigates, which between them had the capability to detect and destroy enemy aircraft, missiles and submarines. Xinhua said the flotilla had conducted eight days of patrolling and exercises in the South China Sea and would continue its exercise in the Western Pacific. Pictures on the official navy website showed Chinese troops practicing launching an assault on an island from the Jinggangshan. Xinhua said that when the flotilla arrived at the reef, all crew took part in an oath-taking ceremony in which they swore that they were "determined to safeguard the country's sovereignty with their services on the South China Sea."The People's Liberation Army daily—the official mouthpiece of China's military— said the crew pledged confidence in their mission to "fight and win battles." That echoed the words of Mr. Xi, who has made a series of speeches instructing China's military to focus on real combat and enhance its ability to defeat any adversary.
"This current episode indicates that the Xi Jinping government has not backed down on China's territorial claims," said Carlyle Thayer, an expert on the South China Sea at the University of New South Wales in Australia.
China's claims encompass most of the South China Sea and are demarcated by a U-shaped "nine-dash line" on a map drawn up by Chinese authorities before the Communist Revolution in 1949.
Mr. Thayer said the Chinese navy wasn't violating international law, and its appearance at the James Shoal was more symbolic than a deliberate show of assertiveness. But he added that the episode would "set off alarm bells in Kuala Lumpur" because Malaysia had established oil rigs in waters within China's nine-dash line, not far from the James Shoal.
Ian Storey, another expert on the South China Sea at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, expected the move would be of particular concern to Malaysia and Brunei, saying the two countries "can no longer afford the luxury of downplaying China's increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea."
"That the task force included an amphibious landing ship is designed to show the other claimants that the Chinese navy now has the capabilities to operate far from the mainland and, if necessary, apply force to resolve the dispute," he said.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 13, 2013, 04:29:25 AM
applebee's is a fantastic restaurant for college aged students, cheap, too. i remember taking a west fargo girl out on a first date, and suggested olive garden. she responded, "oh, you don't have to take me to a nice place like that." i smiled. took her there anyway, for, you know, good first impressions :lol:
Are you still together?
I hope they get taken to the Hanoi hilton! :menace:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gfrzcVF0rDatTPED2IzgECexUQ6Q?docId=CNG.50e53e8cdc059d5c220ded4ea4cb1fa9.351
QuoteChina to open disputed islands to tourism: official
(AFP) – 12 minutes ago
BOAO, China — China is to open disputed South China Sea islands up to tourism this month, state media reported Sunday, a move likely to inflame a long-running territorial row with its neighbours.
The plans to allow tourists to visit the Paracel Islands before the May Day holiday is the latest stage in Beijing's development of the territory, which has previously angered Vietnam and caused concern in Washington.
Vietnam and China have a longstanding territorial row over the Paracel Islands. Hanoi last month accused a Chinese vessel of firing on one of its fishing boats which had sailed in disputed waters in the area.
The plan to allow cruise tours follows rapid development of infrastructure in a new city -- Sansha -- along with the establishment of an army garrison on one of the Paracels last year.
Tourists can only visit the islands on cruise ships as the hotels and other facilities are inadequate, news agency Xinhua said, citing Tan Li, executive vice governor of the southern province of Hainan.
Tan was speaking on Saturday at the Boao Forum for Asia, which is being held in Hainan.
The report quoted shipbuilder Haihang Group Corp Ltd as saying its cruise ship was ready to take almost 2,000 passengers on a tour of the islands. A second cruise ship was being built by Hainan Harbor and Shipping Holdings Co, the report added.
"The tour prices will be relatively high due to the high costs of tourism infrastructure construction," Hainan-based tour agency general manager Huang Huaru told Xinhua.
Tan said local authorities would build more supply ships and ports, and beef up the infrastructure in Sansha.
The city was established last summer to administer more than 200 islets, sandbanks and reefs in the South China Sea, which also include the Spratly Islands and Macclesfield Bank.
All the territory within the two million square kilometres (800,000 square miles) of waters under Sansha's "control" is disputed. The South China Sea is also home to vital shipping lanes and substantial proven and estimated oil and gas deposits.
Located on Yongxing Island, Sansha is home to about 1,000 people, mainly involved in the fishing industry.
Residents of China's newest city rely on ships for fresh water and other materials. The Paracels' only hotel, which has 56 rooms, is also on the island.
Inhabitants have access to a bank and a supermarket, photos on the Internet show. There is a library painted in a salmon-coloured hue and a basketball court shaded by palm trees.
Other pictures depict people relaxing in hammocks outside their modest dwellings.
China has occupied the Paracels, known as Xisha in Chinese, since a brief war with South Vietnam in 1974. It is a cluster of about 40 islets, sandbanks and reefs.
Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia all have rival claims to parts of the South China Sea, while the United States is also watching Beijing's increased assertiveness.
In his address opening China's parliament last month, former Premier Wen Jiabao said Beijing should "develop the marine economy... and safeguard China's maritime rights and interests".