Has China been practicing preemptive missile strikes against U.S. bases?

[Piotr]

You seriously believe that? Hiding behind the word peace to pit countries against countries? Please give me the shit that you smoke everyday.
Peace is a word which shouldn't be used in the same sentence with the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

US Empire killed more than 20 million people after World War II and some US militarymen dare to accuse China of being aggresive. US Empire have more than 1000 military bases abroad, while China don't have military basese abroad. Yet some US militarymen claim that China is aggresive. US have financial problems and soon US government will no longer have money for it's trolls for whitewashing US crimes and badmouthing China.
Some US militarymen lie so much because they commited war crimes in Afganistan and Iraq and they are afraid that they will be brought to justice after dissolution of USA.
BTW China have the right to defend itself from US aggresion. Yankee should stop meddling in others internal affaires and go back to England where they come from. North America belong to Native Americans.

 

[Zsari]

A brief history of Chinese pre-emptive attacks:
1950: Tibet
1951: Korea
1955: First Taiwan Strait Crisis (Kinmen/Matsu islands)
1958: Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (Kinmen/Matsu Islands)
1962: India (Ladakh)
1967: India (Nathu La & Cho La)
1969: Soviet Union (Treasure Island)
1974: Paracel Islands
1979: Vietnam
1981: Lang Son (Hill 400/1688)
1984: Vietnam (Cao Bang, Lang Son, Trang Dinh)
1988: Spratly Islands

None in the list is a surprise attack, all of which came with repeated warning. Some like the Tibet and Kinsmen shelling are part of the civil war.

 

[Akasa]

None in the list is a surprise attack, all of which came with repeated warning. Some like the Tibet and Kinsmen shelling are part of the civil war.

Pre-emptive attacks usually come with a "warning" as well. This strategy is actually defensive in the grand scheme of things and is not implemented out of the blue.

 

[Zsari]

Pre-emptive attacks usually come with a "warning" as well. This strategy is actually defensive in the grand scheme of things and is not implemented out of the blue.

What the author wrote was pearl harbor style surprise attack, which would be pointless when warned.

 

[Akasa]

What the author wrote was pearl harbor style surprise attack, which would be pointless when warned.

No; the article specifically talked about pre-emptive strategies. The Pearl Harbor attack was carried out in an attempt to decisively disable most of the US Pacific Fleet, in order to allow for Japanese operations in Southeast Asian oil fields, not to ward off an imminent offensive by the US fleet.

 

[Zsari]

No; the article specifically talked about pre-emptive strategies. The Pearl Harbor attack was carried out in an attempt to decisively disable most of the US Pacific Fleet, in order to allow for Japanese operations in Southeast Asian oil fields, not to ward off an imminent offensive by the US fleet.

There is a difference between surprise and pre-emptive. You are interchanging the two. The gulf war was a pre-emptive attack, but not a surprise one.

 

[Akasa]

There is a difference between surprise and pre-emptive. You are interchanging the two.

The article is clearly revolving around the latter. While similar in execution, the two diverge in their justification.

 

[xunzi]

Their is no flaw in my argument in that post. I edited that post to improve my argument, not to conceal anything. Your friend (misunderstood) my argument and used my edit as a pretext to accuse me of projecting China as a warmongering state. Anybody with good grasp of English can read that post and will understand that I did not accuse China of being a warmongering state or anything of the sort.

My point is that China will have to do something drastic or irrational (insert an example here) to trigger an American military response, it won't come otherwise. Now, this statement does not implies that China is willing to provoke US to that extent.

Clear enough?

You were trying to insinuated that China would invade another nation which justified your support for US counter aggression in the meantime should we take aggressive action when US invaded Iraq? Given your stupid initial thought, I wouldn't be surprised you have a double agenda to believe anything the US did is for good and anything we did is bad. I will just leave it as that.

I am (not) asserting that US is the good guy and China is the bad guy. I am simply pointing out the fact that both [China and US] have the political will and capability of being aggressive in pursuit of their interests.

Example 1: China intervened in the Korean War to rollback American advances in the region under the leadership of Mao Zedong. So who was the aggressor in this conflict? North Korea (1st); US (2nd); and China (3rd). If a state was genuinely innocent in all this, it was South Korea. The rest have justifications, narratives and excuses for their intervention and acts of aggression.

Example 2: China invaded Vietnam in response to Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia. So who was the aggressor in this conflict? I leave this to you.

If you concentrate on the number of wars US have fought, you will get the impression that it is a warmongering state but you need to focus on the context. Do you think that US is responsible for all of the wars it has fought? Do you think that US started World Wars? These matters are not so black and white. China have fought 3 wars since WW2 and was aggressor in 2 of them. This should tell you something.

Again, no attempt to paint China as the bad guy. Just telling you how things are in reality.

Then I shall teach you how to argue in a good contextual matter and with facts.

Your example 1: You must be joking me with your "learned history lesson" in the Korean Peninsula. Who taught that history lesson? South Korea is innocent? LOL Let me taught you and you need to find out why North Korea took action. Everything needs to be discussed in context, as you preach. South Korea is a dictatorship who massacred their own population who they believe were communist supporters, and thus triggered NK to take action to liberate their supporters in the South. I call it a liberation movement of anti-imperalism war which was the popular theme that spread throughout the world and set a tone for the Vietnam War.

Here, look at the list of massacres that SK did in that time frame leading to the Korea War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_South_Korea

Innocent? LOL And no please don't list us as an aggressor in that war. You must understand that we convey our desire and message to the US leadership at the time that under no condition should they advance passed the Yalu River, we would take immediate action. After expanding and conquering Pongyang, they got confident and compelled to advance further north, passing the Yala River, reaching our Northern border and that is when they were getting close to our bottom line and property that we took action to defend our national interest.

Example 2: The War with Vietnam was due to many factors. One of which is the Soviet-back Vietnam occupation of Cambodia and their threat to advance further into Southeast Asia. At the time, the UN agreed with us and even some Southeast countries were happy that we took action against Vietnam. They were terrified of Vietnam and SEATO was form initially for that purpose, to repel against Soviet-back Vietnam from expansion. Nonethesis, that war was drag into us in which Vietnam was not the main actor but the Soviet. Vietnam is the main theater or puppet in that Sino-Soviet conflict.

I don't know. Regime change foreign policy is pretty aggressive to me. What do you think that the US is an angel that only go to war to save other countries for the past 50 years? LOL

I understand that Mao Zedong is a hero to modern Chinese but a neutral observer would notice that he was not only brutal to his political opponents but also had an aggressive foreign policy. He intervened in the Korean War in support of North Korea and fought a war with India over the issue of Tibet. One could argue that war with India was unavoidable but US? He is also responsible for the issue of Taiwan. Now, China wants Taiwan to become a part of it but those guys remember the atrocities of Mao and are not keen about it.

You don't need to take backhand swat at us. No one believe Mao is a hero. We are not as stupid as most foreigners believe in seeing how history works. In fact, I say they are the stupid in not seeing how ugly the early 20th century. Mao wouldn't rise to lead our country if there was not some horrible things that happened but I'm not going to teach you in detail. That is for our countrymen to learn and find out why Mao did the way he does. As I repeat, all the 3 wars you mentioned were either fought by defending our national rights or being provoked such as the India War. In fact, all 3 wars happened right at our border and that should tell you our mindset in those wars. There was no aggression in our part but simply defending ourselves, our rights to exist during post-WWII.

You sure about that?

China invaded Vietnam and learned a lesson from it; 30,000 Chinese troops dead in a span of 2 months and Hanoi remained intact. I admire the bravery of Chinese troops though (respect where due).

Your restraint can be attributed to following factors:

1. Terrible experience in Vietnam War
2. Threat of American intervention
3. Element of unpredictability

Cost-benefit analysis, my friend.

If restraint is an argument then keep in mind that US have exercised it vis-a-vis Cuba, Mexico, Argentina, Iran, Syria and Cambodia. In-fact, US gave Iraq an ultimatum of 1 year to withdraw its forces from Kuwait prior to the Persian Gulf War.

Again, go learn about the Sino-Soviet split, Vietnam expansion into Southeast Asia, SEATO, UN reaction to VN occupation and come back to talk to me.

1. Both [China and US] have shown the determination to use force when they felt it necessary (see above).
2. China has threatened Taiwan with dire consequences should it declare independence (is this not coercion?).
3. China's artificial island in SCS region as a front-line base of operations against rivals.

I would also disclose something a bit personal here because it offers a valuable lesson: I had a business deal with a Chinese businessman in Hong Kong but that guy committed fraud and I suffered noticeable loss. However, I did not let this (not-so-memorable) experience cloud my assessment of China on the whole; their is good in China after-all. Nonetheless, this experience reminded me of an important distinction: that state-to-state relations can be different from what a common man may experience on the ground at personal capacity, that state-to-state relations are driven by mutual interests and sugarcoated narratives. However, an individual should not be blind in his judgement about the stuff he perceives positively from a distance, that he should proceed with caution in his dealings with anybody and do his homework well enough. In-fact, I can extrapolate this lesson to even state-level deals (defective Chinese locomotives anyone?)

Let me finish my argument on a lighter note: I admire China for its progress and friendship with Pakistan. I perceive China as a role-model of economic prosperity for the entire world and highlight it as an such in my discussions concerning Pakistan. I wish China best of luck in its future endeavors. However, I do not let my nationalism come in the way of my rationality: I tend to see good in all but I would call a spade a spade. I strive for truthfulness. That is it.

1. The difference is we didn't take action. We showed as a deterrent force but never do we take action without being provoked directly by it.
2. That is not a coercion but a promise to defend the motherland wish and so our ancestors' wish to keep the country intact as one. You have to remember that every country has the rights to anti-secession law, including your US. I don't see any parallel. Taiwan people can remain peaceful, can enjoy their own development and market, democracy and all that. We will not take action. We will only take action when they declare independent from the motherland.
3. As our officials have said, those islands serve dual purposes. One is for humanitarian assistance in case of disaster but also to keep SCS safe from pirates. We don't need the new islands for military purposes. We can easily establish military bases in the Paracel Islands which is closer to Hainan navy base. But if you believe the new islands can serve military purpose, then that is fine with me. Like I said, it is a dual purpose.

I don't care about your personal dealing with some Chinese businessman. We all dealt with questionable people of all nationalities. Do you know most of the scammers here in the US is from South Asia, Indian and Pakistani? But that will not stop me from partnering with them at workplaces or buying their products if they got good products. You have to use your brain to judge and make an objective judgment. That is what I want. The world is not as black and white as you perceive nor the US is a rosy angel who comes to protect others. That is all I'm going to teach you for today.

 

[Zsari]

The article is clearly revolving around the latter. While similar in execution, the two diverge in their justification.

Ah, and nothing like "Pearl Harbor 2.0" to get that point across?

 

[xunzi]

The reason why your China have not dared done anything beyond harassing fishermen is because your leadership knows the US will act -- after a certain threshold.

Do not mistake the policies of one US President administration to be inevitable lock down for the next. The difference between US and China, if perception is reality, is that the US is guarantor of the peace while China is not. All the graphics about how many US military adventures around the world means shit to Asia. All they care is what China want and what the US can do to deny that want.

Come on Uncle Gambit. You now know and understand our mindset more than we do ourselves.

 

[Akasa]

Ah, and nothing like "Pearl Harbor 2.0" to get that point across?

The author likely drew the historical parallel based on the geographic similarities of potential Pacific flashpoints and that of Pearl Harbor, not the context in which such conflicts play out.

You are a lying false flagger. Don't pretend to be Chinese.

1950: Tibet - wrong. See British invasion and massacre in Tibet. CIA proxy wars using Tibet. Then read the Sautman study on how the PLA freed Tibetans from slavery.
1951: Korea - wrong. Read The Hidden History of the Korean War. The USA instigated this war as it did everywhere else during the Cold War (see Killing Hope).
1955: First Taiwan Strait Crisis (Kinmen/Matsu islands) - wrong. This is an unfinished civil war and no one else's businesses. The USA kept this civil war going starting with its funding of the corrupt KMT. See USA’s warfare against China 1/2
1958: Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (Kinmen/Matsu Islands) - See above.
1962: India (Ladakh) - wrong. See India's China War. India was fed tainted intelligence by the American CIA. Furthermore, this border problem was created by the British randomly drawing the McMahon line to create tensions as they did elsewhere when they "gifted" their victims with "independence".
1967: India (Nathu La & Cho La) - See above.
1969: Soviet Union (Treasure Island) - prove it.
1974: Paracel Islands - prove it.
1979: Vietnam - Wrong. China warned Vietnam to stop its dreams of an IndoChinese empire by invading its neighbors. After defying Beijing's orders, the PLA got militarily involved.
1981: Lang Son (Hill 400/1688) - see above
1984: Vietnam (Cao Bang, Lang Son, Trang Dinh)- see above
1988: Spratly Islands - wrong. Read "The NYTimes' 'China Threat' Myth, The 'Pivot To Asia,' And Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy"

You are a lying. Stop lying, false flagging coward.

Search "Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media"

Now, here's a list of of racist white American psychopathy.

Why am I wasting time with an individual who believes that the US initiated the Korean War?

On an interesting note, however; what you wrote regarding China's conflicts with Vietnam & India agrees with my assertions that the Chinese took it upon themselves to instigate hostilities.

 

[AndrewJin]

bullsh:t

+1

ignorance

+1

 

[TaiShang]

US neo-fascist regime is to be kept in check. In fact, currently, US economic and political threats and aggressions against many nations do not create concern, but curiosity and wonder.

Consider it a sympathy that comes naturally at the sight of a mad dog that is on its last leg but with very sharp teeth and high-pitch barking.

 

[Jlaw]

+1


+1

+ 2

US neo-fascist regime is to be kept in check. In fact, currently, US economic and political threats and aggressions against many nations do not create concern, but curiosity and wonder.

Consider it a sympathy that comes naturally at the sight of a mad dog that is on its last leg but with very sharp teeth and high-pitch barking.

time to pull out the old beat dog paddle

 

[tranquilium]

That's a very silly question. Of course China practiced missile strike against US bases. The major nuclear nations has practiced missile strike against vital targets in other nations ever since the start of cold war.