AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Chinese allies VS American Allies
taybenco
post Apr 4 2009, 11:00 AM
Post #41


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 18-September 07
From: Old Europe




QUOTE(mkfk1 @ Apr 4 2009, 04:31 PM) [snapback]4187013[/snapback]
Is that why the US is putting a missile defense shield right up to Russian border?

Is this why NATO is expanding eastward?


Here in Mitteleuropa, it is not diplomatic to openly talk about a military alliance with Russia. They are still the bad guys, turning the gas off at will, enslaving poor, poor Mikhail Shakashvili, poisoning sushi in London bars, etc. etc.

Maybe the PRC should reactivate its alliance with maoist Albania, too bad they just joined NATO instead.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mkfk1
post Apr 4 2009, 11:08 AM
Post #42


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,910
Joined: 24-October 06




QUOTE
Here in Mitteleuropa, it is not diplomatic to openly talk about a military alliance with Russia. They are still the bad guys, turning the gas off at will, enslaving poor, poor Mikhail Shakashvili, poisoning sushi in London bars, etc. etc.

Maybe the PRC should reactivate its alliance with maoist Albania, too bad they just joined NATO instead.


Why should Russia give free gas, if Ukraine wont pay their debt?

Why should Russia sit and do nothing if Georgia start shelling SO?

Maybe the US should expand NATO to Thailand, or Malaysia, or TW? Oh wait, all these democracies would rather have a friendly relationship with PRC then be financial raped by the old IMF.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
taybenco
post Apr 4 2009, 11:12 AM
Post #43


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 18-September 07
From: Old Europe




QUOTE(mkfk1 @ Apr 4 2009, 05:08 PM) [snapback]4187031[/snapback]
Why should Russia give free gas, if Ukraine wont pay their debt?

Why should Russia sit and do nothing if Georgia start shelling SO?

Maybe the US should expand NATO to Thailand, or Malaysia, or TW? Oh wait, all these democracies would rather have a friendly relationship with PRC then be financial raped by the old IMF.


NATO will probably accept Australia, since they are clearly in the North Atlantic...oh and probably set up a dummy entity in the Arctic, so it can be defended against the evil Ivans...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mkfk1
post Apr 4 2009, 11:16 AM
Post #44


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,910
Joined: 24-October 06




QUOTE
NATO will probably accept Australia, since they are clearly in the North Atlantic...oh and probably set up a dummy entity in the Arctic, so it can be defended against the evil Ivans...


Yes, people with different skin color, or cultures or Ideas are all evil... There is a reason why the crusade exist. There is a reason why WW2 exist.

This is the 21st century. People need to have more tolerances for different things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
taybenco
post Apr 4 2009, 11:23 AM
Post #45


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 18-September 07
From: Old Europe




QUOTE(mkfk1 @ Apr 4 2009, 05:16 PM) [snapback]4187036[/snapback]
Yes, people with different skin color, or cultures or Ideas are all evil... There is a reason why the crusade exist. There is a reason why WW2 exist.

This is the 21st century. People need to have more tolerances for different things.


I'm quite an optimist in that matter. Even if there will be more nationalism in the future, the means of communication (even if economic globalization is slowed or stopped completely) will still create more tolerance for other people. This doesn't mean that power struggles will cease to exist. There will be pragmatic alliances in the future, not such "western values" or "oriental values" crusaders bashing their heads in. Or maybe I'm just dreaming...

Anyway, the PRC has proven itself pragmatic in its quest for superpower-status, until now. So Serbia, Belarus, Israel might be on your side in WW3.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mkfk1
post Apr 4 2009, 11:28 AM
Post #46


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,910
Joined: 24-October 06




QUOTE
Anyway, the PRC has proven itself pragmatic in its quest for superpower-status, until now. So Serbia, Belarus, Israel might be on your side in WW3.


Nothing compare to what the US and NATO has done to the world. Mass killing, bombing, raping, and torture.

PRC and any other countries, such as India, Russia, and Brazil has their right to develop and rise with more power. Their "quest" are legit as long as they dont take hostile action on foreign nations...something that I cant say the same for the US, who's track record for the past 60 years are literally filled with conquest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yhellothar
post Apr 4 2009, 11:32 AM
Post #47


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,201
Joined: 26-March 08
From: Mars




If America were to start a war with China, South Korea, Japan and India would be unlikely to join in. Same goes for Thailand or Indonesia.

This post has been edited by yhellothar: Apr 4 2009, 11:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
taybenco
post Apr 4 2009, 11:43 AM
Post #48


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 18-September 07
From: Old Europe




QUOTE(yhellothar @ Apr 4 2009, 05:32 PM) [snapback]4187048[/snapback]
If America were to start a war with China, South Korea, Japan and India would be unlikely to join in. Same goes for Thailand or Indonesia.



As in the last two WW, the last big guy to stay neutral (in those cases the USA) and the last to step in the conflict will take the prize.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mkfk1
post Apr 4 2009, 12:13 PM
Post #49


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2,910
Joined: 24-October 06




QUOTE
As in the last two WW, the last big guy to stay neutral (in those cases the USA) and the last to step in the conflict will take the prize.


The one comment that I can agree with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
type52
post Apr 5 2009, 01:13 AM
Post #50


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 134
Joined: 2-March 09
From: singapore




QUOTE(yhellothar @ Apr 4 2009, 11:32 AM) [snapback]4187048[/snapback]
If America were to start a war with China, South Korea, Japan and India would be unlikely to join in. Same goes for Thailand or Indonesia.

i dont think so, theyre most likely to sit on the sidelines at the begining and then jump in if america is winning kinda like brazil in WW2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MeteorXY
post Apr 13 2009, 02:03 PM
Post #51


AF Geek
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 12-April 09
From: Shanghai




QUOTE(riversouth @ Apr 20 2008, 03:22 AM) [snapback]3649816[/snapback]
china bought most from russia but mostly 2nd rate technology.


China have their own military tech.
The top military weapon is better than those 2nd rate tech sold by Russia
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
COPE2
post Oct 9 2009, 04:45 PM
Post #52


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 9-October 09




QUOTE (yhellothar @ Apr 4 2009, 12:32 PM) *
If America were to start a war with China, South Korea, Japan and India would be unlikely to join in. Same goes for Thailand or Indonesia.

If America wanted China destroyed, it would not have to lift a finger. Instead, they will have Japan invade it, while the USA just sat back and watched. In fact, America does this a lot. During the 80s and 90s, America would have Iran and Iraq fighting against each other, and the USA would back different sides at different times.
Japan almost succeeded in conquering China during WW2, and that was on its own. Can you imagine the force that Japan would have with the backing of U.S. $, and weapons? Japan currently is the 5th largest military spender in the world. Since it does not actually have an offensive army, it spends most of its money on weapons research, meaning they could produce some of the best weapons that you would see. I also wouldn't be surprised if the USA was able to successfully get the Taiwanese to join the Japanese in a joint forces attack on China. Taiwan attacking from the south, and Japan attacking from the North east. You might even see the Tibetans attacking from the west, after all, the USA did also back the Tibetans for many years to attack the PLA. It would not take a whole lot of convincing for Korea to join in. In fact, there have been recent polls done that indicate that both Koreans, and Japanese see China's development as a threat to the region. With that kind of thinking already in place, it would not take much to get them to attack China.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Red Fox Ace
post Oct 9 2009, 04:54 PM
Post #53


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,557
Joined: 11-August 06




QUOTE (COPE2 @ Oct 9 2009, 05:45 PM) *
If America wanted China destroyed, it would not have to lift a finger. Instead, they will have Japan invade it, while the USA just sat back and watched.




And in one sentence, you just lost your laughable, pathetic credibility forever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Made in China
post Oct 9 2009, 04:57 PM
Post #54


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,661
Joined: 25-April 04




^ Actually, if China ever challenged US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific, Japan will be rearmed under the guise of "NK threat" and will be allowed to serve as a US proxy in an East Asian "arms race."

Japan will also be given nuclear capabilities under the guise of a "NK Threat" to counteract Chinese rising influence in Asia-Pacific.

Japan was said to be the "next Superpower rival" during the 1970's and 1980's due to it's rapidly growing economy and ENORMOUS GDP (2nd largest in the world.) Plus, Japan is a historical military power with cutting edge technology. It also has the 2nd strongest navy in Asia.

That never came to fruition due to the asset bubble popped. (China should remember this...)

------------------------------------

Russia would stay neutral in a conflict between US and China. (nothing to gain... Russia is better off aligning with NATO than to suffer economic sanctions by joining China)

Plus China and Russia have different interests. Sino-Soviet split defined this very well.

This post has been edited by Made in China: Oct 9 2009, 05:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sinraptor
post Oct 9 2009, 05:29 PM
Post #55


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,234
Joined: 13-August 08
From: Fusang




i don't think China is a beatable as it was during WW2 as China now has more of an industry
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samnang
post Oct 9 2009, 05:37 PM
Post #56


AF Guru
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,894
Joined: 14-July 09





QUOTE (Einstein)
I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.


Yeah that quote is getting more and more believable each day.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CharlesDarwin
post Oct 9 2009, 11:21 PM
Post #57


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 2-August 09




QUOTE (COPE2 @ Oct 9 2009, 04:45 PM) *
Japan almost succeeded in conquering China during WW2, and that was on its own.


China has stooped Japan's invasion even before US entered in the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changsha_%281939%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_South_Guangxi

This post has been edited by CharlesDarwin: Oct 9 2009, 11:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BurdenOfAges
post Oct 10 2009, 01:06 AM
Post #58


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 7-July 09




QUOTE (sinraptor @ Oct 9 2009, 06:29 PM) *
i don't think China is a beatable as it was during WW2 as China now has more of an industry


It's not just the technology advantage. The Ming was as advanced if not more so than the Manchus in terms of military technology, yet it lost. Yes, the Ming might have been able to win if the imperial court was not fighting massive peasant rebellions due to its corruption, all the while its border armies were defecting to the Manchus, bolstering their forces and giving them the military intelligence they needed to defeat the Ming, but that's the point.

Corruption, lack of organization, lack of martial honor, internal strife, and neglect of the armed forces have been China's traditional problems with its military, and these problems persist even in the modern age. Military service is still not highly regarded in Chinese culture. Yet, if men of good character and great ability do not see joining the military as a worthwhile pursuit, China will inevitably lack the highly intelligent and competent officer corps every military needs in order to succeed.

This post has been edited by BurdenOfAges: Oct 10 2009, 01:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CharlesDarwin
post Oct 10 2009, 03:26 AM
Post #59


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 2-August 09




QUOTE (BurdenOfAges @ Oct 10 2009, 01:06 AM) *
The Ming was as advanced if not more so than the Manchus in terms of military technology, yet it lost.


Manchus didn't defeat Ming dynasty, you know nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shun_Dynasty


QUOTE
all the while its border armies were defecting to the Manchus, bolstering their forces and giving them the military intelligence they needed to defeat the Ming


yes, there wasn't nationalism then.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/405644/nationalism
Men did not give their loyalty to the nation-state but to other, different forms of political organization: the city-state, the feudal fief and its lord, the dynastic state, the religious group, or the sect. The nation-state was nonexistent during the greater part of history, and for a very long time it was not even regarded as an ideal.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/111803/China
By 1648 less than one-sixth of the bannermen were actually of Manchu ancestry. The Manchu conquest was thus achieved with a multiethnic army led by Manchu nobles and Han Chinese generals.


QUOTE
It's not just the technology advantage


yes it is.
If China and Japan had the same level of economy, Japan could not conquer even a little rock on Chinese territory.

QUOTE
China's traditional problems with its military


it is not smart to compare ancient wars and modern, and in modern wars China was very successful when you look how poor China was.

Stoop Japan in 1939:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changsha_%281939%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_South_Guangxi

Korean war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#China_intervenes

Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish

Soviet Union(Chinese tactical victory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

India (Chinese victory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino_indian_war

This post has been edited by CharlesDarwin: Oct 10 2009, 03:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hozobo
post Oct 10 2009, 06:03 AM
Post #60


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,400
Joined: 1-February 06




QUOTE (COPE2 @ Oct 9 2009, 04:45 PM) *
If America wanted China destroyed, it would not have to lift a finger. Instead, they will have Japan invade it, while the USA just sat back and watched. In fact, America does this a lot. During the 80s and 90s, America would have Iran and Iraq fighting against each other, and the USA would back different sides at different times.
Japan almost succeeded in conquering China during WW2, and that was on its own. Can you imagine the force that Japan would have with the backing of U.S. $, and weapons? Japan currently is the 5th largest military spender in the world. Since it does not actually have an offensive army, it spends most of its money on weapons research, meaning they could produce some of the best weapons that you would see. I also wouldn't be surprised if the USA was able to successfully get the Taiwanese to join the Japanese in a joint forces attack on China. Taiwan attacking from the south, and Japan attacking from the North east. You might even see the Tibetans attacking from the west, after all, the USA did also back the Tibetans for many years to attack the PLA. It would not take a whole lot of convincing for Korea to join in. In fact, there have been recent polls done that indicate that both Koreans, and Japanese see China's development as a threat to the region. With that kind of thinking already in place, it would not take much to get them to attack China.

I have the same thought, it would be interesting to see why anglos has always succeeded in pulling those trick on non-anglos (made them fighting against each other)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2014 - 07:31 PM