A War Between Japan And China In The Next Year?

[Richard]

What next?

Don't Be Surprised If There's A War Between Japan And China In The Next Year

Chinese planes flew near Japanese airspace Monday to assert its claims to Japan's Senkaku islands (China calls them the Diaoyu islands).

The move came just as Japan announced its new prime minister.

Hugh White, a professor at Australian National University and a former Australian defense official, believes this is the latest sign the two countries are heading to war.

And the U.S. will be dragged in.

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, White says we are now witnessing the types of conditions that have historically led to war — despite conflict being in no one's interest.

THIS is how wars usually start: with a steadily escalating stand-off over something intrinsically worthless. So don't be too surprised if the US and Japan go to war with China next year over the uninhabited rocks that Japan calls the Senkakus and China calls the Diaoyu islands. And don't assume the war would be contained and short.

It seems almost laughably unthinkable that the world's three richest countries - two of them nuclear-armed - would go to war over something so trivial. But that is to confuse what starts a war with what causes it.

The conflict is really about China challenging the U.S. in the Pacific, White says. President Obama has vowed a Pentagon "pivot to Asia," itself a response to China's growing strength.

Claiming the Senkaku islands, a series of small outcroppings in the East China Sea, is China's way of testing America's new posture, White says.

And it's this kind of tit-for-tat that inevitably causes someone to open fire.

The risk is that, without a clear circuit-breaker, the escalation will continue until at some point shots are exchanged, and a spiral to war begins that no one can stop. Neither side could win such a war, and it would be devastating not just for them but for the rest of us.

No one wants this, but the crisis will not stop by itself.

http://www.businessinsider.com/china...#ixzz2GSIh0PgM

[Pete]

US will not stand firm (signaled back channel) behind Japan and China gets the Islands.

No War - the left is too busy working to ban guns.

[PRB]

China has a history of thinking in 100's if not thousands of years. WW2 is very recent history and the anger over Japanese invasion is not lost on today's generation nor the Communist Govt.
Our assistance to them is also remembered.
We are in a position to negotiate differences if we take the lead.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by PRB

China has a history of thinking in 100's if not thousands of years. WW2 is very recent history and the anger over Japanese invasion is not lost on today's generation nor the Communist Govt.
Our assistance to them is also remembered.
We are in a position to negotiate differences if we take the lead.

Oh well...

[mark46th]

The last thing this president will be known for is taking the lead on foreign policy....

[Red Flag 1]

Originally Posted by mark46th

The last thing this president will be known for is taking the lead on foreign policy....

Somewhere during his run up to 2008, obama said about his lack of international experience that, "that is why he has biden on the ticket as VP". I know that I go to sleep wrapped up, all nice and cozy with the thought of "good old joe" taking care of these little international thingies .

RF 1

[PRB]

I was in a similar brief....there was another major factor...economics.
The stronger the economic ties between the US and China the less the chances for war...the stronger the Chinese economy was ... particularly in the growing middle class and stronger wages across the board would also diminish the percentages for classic warfare.
All of those economic equations have come about.
Does China want to lose all of it's US debt holdings? Does China want to lose its largest market for goods and for production?
Maybe, I'm no seer but I doubt it.
China has never had it so good for the Government or it's average worker.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by PRB

I was in a similar brief....there was another major factor...economics.
The stronger the economic ties between the US and China the less the chances for war...the stronger the Chinese economy was ... particularly in the growing middle class and stronger wages across the board would also diminish the percentages for classic warfare.
All of those economic equations have come about.
Does China want to lose all of it's US debt holdings? Does China want to lose its largest market for goods and for production?
Maybe, I'm no seer but I doubt it.
China has never had it so good for the Government or it's average worker.

Not all trade is equal in importance.

China has a significant net surplus in exporting toys to the US.
The US has a significant net surplus in exporting food to China.

Who is really dependent upon whom?

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Red Flag 1

Somewhere during his run up to 2008, obama said about his lack of international experience that, "that is why he has biden on the ticket as VP". I know that I go to sleep wrapped up, all nice and cozy with the thought of "good old joe" taking care of these little international thingies .

RF 1

Deep kimchi on the horizon; the VP is busy with that pesky guns matter Pete talked about.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Not all trade is equal in importance.

China has a significant net surplus in exporting toys to the US.
The US has a significant net surplus in exporting food to China.

Who is really dependent upon whom?

It isn't just the cheap crap, it's the expensive technology as well. China currently has the monopoly on rare earth, which puts a lot at stake here in the US until we get our own production up to speed.

OTOH, the with the Japanese economy in a recession[1], nationalism[2] is on the rise, someone in the moment may decide there isn't much to lose.

MOO: Russia is going to watch this with great interest, I can see them publicly supporting China and covertly supporting Japan at the same time. They can benefit from prolonging the conflict, keeping China engaged and away from their southern border, as well as trying to engage the US in the conflict which will keep us from scrutinizing them as well. As far as the US is concerned, circumstance[3] more than diplomacy will probably drive how we approach this, I don't think the public has an appetite for another intervention and/or war, and we have enough issues to deal with at home, I believe as serious as this may be, we will probably be hands off.

My .02, YMMV

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/10/news...ion/index.html
[2] http://www.economist.com/node/21564263
[3] http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/state...ng-us-strategy

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by BOfH

It isn't just the cheap crap, it's the expensive technology as well. China currently has the monopoly on rare earth, which puts a lot at stake here in the US until we get our own production up to speed.

"Reserves" are an economic measure not a physical one.
China's advantage comes from cheap labor and lax safety regulations.

Our production will never get up to speed so long as Chinese are producing it more cheaply.

There are plenty of sub-economic rare earth deposits elsewhere (including the US).
Many nations have a massive "reserve" of rare earths in disposed consumer-electronics.

If China attempts to restrict supply they will only be cutting their own throat.
A rise in price would make recycling economic and would enable other countries to develop their own resources.

Commodity markets are generally way ahead of this stuff.

In 2007, rhodium was way out there on the risk matrix
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...12034&page=165

Markets were aware and were priced accordingly.
http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/rh1825lnb.html

Increased risk causes increased prices which ultimately causes increased supply, decreased risk, and decreased prices.
Mineral availability is limited more by economics than it is by technology or physical deposits.

Don't need to look any further than the oil and natural gas boom in this country see this in action.

[mark46th]

Obama chose Joe Biden because of his foreign policy expertise and now it looks like John Kerry will be the next Secretary of State. Geezus, Joseph and Mary, we are fxxxed....

[MR2]

Originally Posted by mark46th

Obama chose Joe Biden because of his foreeign policy expertise and now it looks like John Kerry will be the next Secretary of State. Geezus, Joseph and Mary, we are fxxxed....

Translation: Obama, Biden, and Kerry. Yup, you got that right!

[Basenshukai]

With this administration I don't think that we would enter any other war.

[MR2]

Too busy fighting a class war...