How Japan getting caught in the dilemma between the US/Russia conflict

[Chinese-Dragon]

I am quite surprised to see you contemplate this option. Japan is a turn-key nuclear power already, and developing nuclear weapons is a relatively trivial technical step for Japan, as it already has sufficient stocks of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Such an attack would be meaningless in terms of stopping a potential Japanese nuclear program, and of course would alienate vast numbers of countries.

Besides, do you think Japan would not retaliate militarily? What about its treaty ally, the US? How would other powers in the region react? Too many unknowns for China to act in such a reckless manner.

In truth, China's practical leadership would likely do nothing more than issue harsh rhetoric, like it did with its proxies North Korea and Pakistan. War, and potentially nuclear war, is a risk to the CCP's hold on power; and the CCP's hold on power is the CCP's highest priority.

My friend, do you empathize with the Jews when they say "Never again"? How they acquired nuclear weapons and then stopped their enemies from doing the same?

If you can understand that, surely you can understand our feelings as well, considering that we lost more than the Holocaust x 4.

And in truth our great humiliation was much deeper than just the numbers might show. Others can forget but we can't.

You can make the argument that modern day Japan is more responsible than modern day Iran, and others might dispute that, but then again Iran was not the one who committed the Holocaust against the Jews either.

Too many unknowns for China to act in such a reckless manner.

Everyone gets reckless over something. How far would Israel go to assure "Never again"? Maybe as far as the Samson option.

Do you want to see a Chinese person acting in a reckless manner? Everyone knows what to say to achieve that, and many on this forum say it often and regularly, under the cover of anonymity of course.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

My friend, do you empathize with the Jews when they say "Never again"? How they acquired nuclear weapons and then stopped their enemies from doing the same?

If you can understand that, surely you can understand our feelings as well, considering that we lost more than the Holocaust x 4.

And in truth our great humiliation was much deeper than just the numbers might show. Others can forget but we can't.

You can make the argument that modern day Japan is more responsible than modern day Iran, and others might dispute that, but then again Iran was not the one who committed the Holocaust against the Jews either.



Everyone gets reckless over something. How far would Israel go to assure "Never again"? Maybe as far as the Samson option.

Do you want to see a Chinese person acting in a reckless manner? Everyone knows what to say to achieve that, and many on this forum say it often and regularly, under the cover of anonymity of course.

I agree and understand completely. I merely propose that a far more practical way for China to assure its safety would be to entice Japan into its own sphere of influence, or if that is too distasteful, isolate Japan by coming to terms with the US (as much as I like Japan, I believe the US would make this trade fairly easily, considering its sacrifice of Ukraine, Mubarak's Egypt, Georgia, the Kurds, South Vietnam, and so forth). As long as the US and Japan are allied, I think China's ability to suppress Japan will be limited, and military action will backfire horribly.

China must do what it can to protect its people, and I sympathize with their fear and the determination that "never again" will they be subjected to atrocities. China's leadership has shown its pragmatic nature over the last few decades, and I believe this quality will persist. Therefore, just as Israel's circumstances dictated a preemptive strike against Iraq and Syria but not Iran, I believe that China would be able to employ that tactic against, say, Vietnam, but not Japan, or at least not at this time. China needs to find another way (diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, etc.) to head off such an eventuality. My fear is that preemptive action by China will precipitate the very outcome it is trying to prevent. As you mentioned with Israel, China should hold this card in reserve, and use its existence as a deterrence. It can always be played later if necessary, but not yet.

I hope we come out of this with both China and Japan feeling secure enough that such an outcome remains in the realm of fantasy. China's leadership has been very clever thus far, taking what it can, preventing others from gaining where there is no ownership, and applying pressure where other countries hold territories that it disputes. This strategy works for China, and it will continue to yield results if China is patient. However, if the pressure transforms into a more overt or military character, I am not certain China will have an easy time of it, or achieve the outcome it desires.

War radicalizes populations, and we can't know in advance what a nation is capable of once it finds itself at war. China should only contemplate a preemptive strike as a last resort, but we are far from that scenario at the moment.

I have great respect for you, as one of my favorite users on PDF. I understand now that your question about a preemptive strike was in the context of a last resort scenario, but it wasn't clear to me at the time I wrote the previous post, especially in the context of several keyboard warriors calling for military action against Japan as a first resort. If I misunderstood your intent before, then I apologize.

 

[andy_hujian]

Silly caricature!

It at least shows being an ally of the U.S. is not free.
You have to lose something as an exchange.

 

[andy_hujian]

I agree and understand completely. I merely propose that a far more practical way for China to assure its safety would be to entice Japan into its own sphere of influence, or if that is too distasteful, isolate Japan by coming to terms with the US (as much as I like Japan, I believe the US would make this trade fairly easily, considering its sacrifice of Ukraine, Mubarak's Egypt, Georgia, the Kurds, South Vietnam, and so forth). As long as the US and Japan are allied, I think China's ability to suppress Japan will be limited, and military action will backfire horribly.

China must do what it can to protect its people, and I sympathize with their fear and the determination that "never again" will they be subjected to atrocities. China's leadership has shown its pragmatic nature over the last few decades, and I believe this quality will persist. Therefore, just as Israel's circumstances dictated a preemptive strike against Iraq and Syria but not Iran, I believe that China would be able to employ that tactic against, say, Vietnam, but not Japan, or at least not at this time. China needs to find another way (diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, etc.) to head off such an eventuality. My fear is that preemptive action by China will precipitate the very outcome it is trying to prevent. As you mentioned with Israel, China should hold this card in reserve, and use its existence as a deterrence. It can always be played later is necessary, but not yet.

I hope we come out of this with both China and Japan feeling secure enough that such an outcome remains in the realm of fantasy. China's leadership has been very clever thus far, taking what it can, preventing others from gaining where there is no ownership, and applying pressure where other countries hold territories that it disputes. This strategy works for China, and it will continue to yield results if China is patient. However, if the pressure transforms into a more overt or military character, I am not certain China will have an easy time of it, or achieve the outcome it desires.

War radicalizes populations, and we can't know in advance what a nation is capable of once it finds itself at war. China should only contemplate a preemptive strike as a last resort, but we are far from that scenario at the moment.

I have great respect for you, as one of my favorite users on PDF. I understand now that your question about a preemptive strike was in the context of a last resort scenario, but it wasn't clear to me at the time I wrote the previous post, especially in the context of several keyboard warriors calling for military action against Japan as a first resort. If I misunderstood your intent before, then I apologize.

There are two schools of intellectuals in China. One school blames the U.S. for helping Japan contain China. The other school think the U.S. kept japan under leash for more than 60 yrs. Without the U.S., CJK will be in a mess. In my understanding, the ratio is around 7:3.

The U.S. achieved two goals. Keeping the after ww2 order and containing China in the meantime. I think the ratio is 7:3. Thus, China-U.S. relation is indeed complex.

I agree and understand completely. I merely propose that a far more practical way for China to assure its safety would be to entice Japan into its own sphere of influence, or if that is too distasteful, isolate Japan by coming to terms with the US (as much as I like Japan, I believe the US would make this trade fairly easily, considering its sacrifice of Ukraine, Mubarak's Egypt, Georgia, the Kurds, South Vietnam, and so forth). As long as the US and Japan are allied, I think China's ability to suppress Japan will be limited, and military action will backfire horribly.

China must do what it can to protect its people, and I sympathize with their fear and the determination that "never again" will they be subjected to atrocities. China's leadership has shown its pragmatic nature over the last few decades, and I believe this quality will persist. Therefore, just as Israel's circumstances dictated a preemptive strike against Iraq and Syria but not Iran, I believe that China would be able to employ that tactic against, say, Vietnam, but not Japan, or at least not at this time. China needs to find another way (diplomatic pressure, economic pressure, etc.) to head off such an eventuality. My fear is that preemptive action by China will precipitate the very outcome it is trying to prevent. As you mentioned with Israel, China should hold this card in reserve, and use its existence as a deterrence. It can always be played later is necessary, but not yet.

I hope we come out of this with both China and Japan feeling secure enough that such an outcome remains in the realm of fantasy. China's leadership has been very clever thus far, taking what it can, preventing others from gaining where there is no ownership, and applying pressure where other countries hold territories that it disputes. This strategy works for China, and it will continue to yield results if China is patient. However, if the pressure transforms into a more overt or military character, I am not certain China will have an easy time of it, or achieve the outcome it desires.

War radicalizes populations, and we can't know in advance what a nation is capable of once it finds itself at war. China should only contemplate a preemptive strike as a last resort, but we are far from that scenario at the moment.

I have great respect for you, as one of my favorite users on PDF. I understand now that your question about a preemptive strike was in the context of a last resort scenario, but it wasn't clear to me at the time I wrote the previous post, especially in the context of several keyboard warriors calling for military action against Japan as a first resort. If I misunderstood your intent before, then I apologize.

Also, as you said, nuclear weapons are not high technology now. If Japan has nuclear bombs, then SK wants them too. If SK have nuclear bombs, NK will buid more and more nuclear bombs. If NK have so many bombs, China will be very nervous coz no one can control this beast ever again.

In the meantime, the U.S., similar to China, can't control its allies like now. From this perspective, the current situation in northeast Asia is good enough for China continue to grow both in terms of economy and geopolitics.

 

[Brainsucker]

Since when did Japan and Russia gang up against China?

Maybe I can explain it a bit, although maybe I'm not 100% sure that's I'm right. hopefully both Chinese and Russian friends here can help.

1. Well, Japanese is a Godzilla. I never consider Godzilla as a nuclear form of weapon. it just Godzilla is their trademark as they often make movies of Godzilla destroying Tokyo and humanity can't do anything to stand against him. Because they love make a movie of Godzilla too much, so we can consider that Japan is Godzilla. Well, maybe they make a little Godzilla because compared to China, Russia and USA, Japan land mass is the smallest. No body can argue it. I think our Japanese friend here will agree that their land mass is the smallest compared to the three others.

2. From the point of view of Chinese and Russian people, the Diaoyu / Senkaku conflict between China and Japan has put both parties to seek "friends" and allies to their side. Before the Ukraine conflict, Japan and Russia relation is good. So, maybe, just maybe that Japan can get Russia to their side to surround China and put China into disadvantage.

3. The problem is Ukraine Crisis is coming; and the relation between Western countries and Russia become worse. Sanction come from both sides, and US force their allies to join force against Russia. Now, this put our Godzilla into dilemma. Because what US do is basically not favorable to their own national interest. Yet, Japan agree to put sanction into Russia.

4. And this, according our Chinese and Russian friends point of view put both bear and panda into the same side, and that means thwart our Godzilla grand strategy plan.

 

[Aepsilons]

Such a vivid and well written explanation.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

There are two schools of intellectuals in China. One school blames the U.S. for helping Japan contain China. The other school think the U.S. kept japan under leash for more than 60 yrs. Without the U.S., CJK will be in a mess. In my understanding, the ratio is around 7:3.

The U.S. achieved two goals. Keeping the after ww2 order and containing China in the meantime. I think the ratio is 7:3. Thus, China-U.S. relation is indeed complex.

That's especially interesting because it mirrors the thinking in the US. While many in the US have urged Japan to re-arm and assume a larger share of the security burden, some believe that Japan will use this opportunity to throw off the security alliance with the US, and thus want to reiterate the importance of Article 9.

I cannot say the proportion of the two schools, although clearly the "re-arm Japan" school is dominant. It's natural--we know Japan, we've been entwined with Japan, we don't feel threatened by Japan. But we are slowly seeing the rise of the pro-China school (especially on the left, with Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman leading the charge), because fundamentally, China is more like us--and it has the advantage of never having attacked the US homeland, and never having been fascist.

It will be interesting to see if the two minority viewpoints in China and the US become ascendant, because that could lead to a dramatic remaking of the world order. Many see the China-Russia alliance as the natural course of history, but the 1970s show that history is not fatalistic. China and Russia have competing interests in central Asia, and sharing a land border doesn't necessarily lead to a US-Canada level of friendliness. What if the course of events leads back to China-US, separated by the Pacific?

 

[andy_hujian]

That's especially interesting because it mirrors the thinking in the US. While many in the US have urged Japan to re-arm and assume a larger share of the security burden, some believe that Japan will use this opportunity to throw off the security alliance with the US, and thus want to reiterate the importance of Article 9.

I cannot say the proportion of the two schools, although clear the "re-arm Japan" school is dominant. It's natural--we know Japan, we've been entwined with Japan, we don't feel threatened by Japan. But we are slowly seeing the rise of the pro-China school (especially on the left, with Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman leading the charge), because fundamentally, China is more like us--and it has the advantage of never having attacked the US homeland, and never having been fascist.

It will be interesting to see if the two minority viewpoints in China and the US become ascendant, because that could lead to a dramatic remaking of the world order. Many see the China-Russia alliance as the natural course of history, but the 1970s show that history is not fatalistic. China and Russia have competing interests in centeal Asia, and sharing a land border doesn't necessarily lead to a US-Canada level of friendliness. What if the course of events leads back to China-US, separated by the Pacific?

China-Russia relation is also heavily studied. The only conclusion is history is a circle, don't put eggs in one basket and always leave one more option. The U.S. is good at this too, always leaving one more option.

 

[TheMatador]

In the reality, Japan doesn't have the gut to declare the war against China alone, they know this is simply like committing the suicide, even worse than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

All their morale comes from the US support, and they are expecting to drag the US into the possible conflict against China.

In any kind of scenario including East China Sea or Taiwan, if USA is not involved directly, the result of a short, local conflict would be devastating losses for the Japanese fleet. The Japanese leadership will try to use that to develop nukes immediately saying USA failed to protect them.

I am quite surprised to see you contemplate this option. Japan is a turn-key nuclear power already, and developing nuclear weapons is a relatively trivial technical step for Japan, as it already has sufficient stocks of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Such an attack would be meaningless in terms of stopping a potential Japanese nuclear program, and of course would alienate vast numbers of countries.

Besides, do you think Japan would not retaliate militarily? What about its treaty ally, the US? How would other powers in the region react? Too many unknowns for China to act in such a reckless manner.

In truth, China's practical leadership would likely do nothing more than issue harsh rhetoric, like it did with its proxies North Korea and Pakistan. War, and potentially nuclear war, is a risk to the CCP's hold on power; and the CCP's hold on power is the CCP's highest priority.

Please do not continue with the ignorant rant. China's nuclear sword is the most advanced ballistic missiles in the world with carbon epoxy casing, laser ring gyroscopes and ablative coating on maneuverable reentry vehicles. We can launch from conventional or nuclear submarines. Our J-20 can carry sub-megaton devices. Our advanced nuclear devices are light, small and pack the most explosive yield. We have command centers buried many kilometers deep underground inside mountain ranges to fight and win a nuclear war. We have a ballistic missile defense shield.

We do not decapitate our enemies with this nuclear sword unless they pick up a nuclear sword themselves. The moment Japan tries your so-called "turn-key" move that would be its last move

Are you feeling lucky, punk? Go ahead... make my day.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

In any kind of scenario including East China Sea or Taiwan, if USA is not involved directly, the result of a short, local conflict would be devastating losses for the Japanese fleet. The Japanese leadership will try to use that to develop nukes immediately saying USA failed to protect them. Please do not continue with the ignorant rant. China's nuclear sword is the most advanced ballistic missiles in the world with carbon epoxy casing, laser ring gyroscopes and ablative coating on maneuverable reentry vehicles. We can launch from conventional or nuclear submarines. Our J-20 can carry sub-megaton devices. Our advanced nuclear devices are light, small and pack the most explosive yield. We have command centers buried many kilometers deep underground inside mountain ranges to fight and win a nuclear war. We have a ballistic missile defense shield.

We do not decapitate our enemies with this nuclear sword unless they pick up a nuclear sword themselves. The moment Japan tries your so-called "turn-key" move that would be its last move

Are you feeling lucky, punk? Go ahead... make my day.

View attachment 92537

"Nuclear sword"? Put down the controller and back away from the video game. Then ask yourself why nuclear weapons have not been deployed since WWII.

 

[TheMatador]

"Nuclear sword"? Put down the controller and back away from the video game. Then ask yourself why nuclear weapons have not been deployed since WWII.

My friend, stick to capital markets. All superpowers including China "deploy" nuclear weapons right now.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

My friend, stick to capital markets. All superpowers including China "deploy" nuclear weapons right now.

Well, I tried. For your own enrichment, please look up the other definitions of "deploy," but that is incidental. Fire away.

 

[TheMatador]

Well, I tried. For your own enrichment, please look up the other definitions of "deploy," but that is incidental. Fire away.

Anyway, when it comes to Japan going nuclear. They just need to ask themselves one question: Do you feel lucky, punk?
You think Chairman Mao was joking? You think Chairman Xi Jinping is joking now?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Anyway, when it comes to Japan going nuclear. They just need to ask themselves one question: Do you feel lucky, punk?
You think Chairman Mao was joking? You think Chairman Xi Jinping is joking now?

I don't see anything humorous about this, and it's not a matter of Dirty Harry blowing away the bad guys in righteous anger. Chinese blood isn't so cheap that CCP leadership would sacrifice millions (or tens of millions) of Chinese lives to sate a desire for revenge against Japan.

MAD works as a deterrent because the use of nuclear weapons will be met in kind.

 

[VelocuR]

love that cartoon expressions, unfortunately Japan is in wrong position.

Poor Japan, always got yourself in between the big boys.