What's new

How the U.S. sees China?

:lol::lol::lol: Keep deluding yourself like a weakling. The last time you signed a formal treaty with USSR thinking they will protect you instead they just watched as China slaughtered 30k military and 100k civilians when we invaded your country.


But a few nukes on Manila will turn Pinoys back into monkeys :rofl:

China is a signatory of the non-nuclear proliferation pact. If you were to hypothetically launch a nuclear strike on the Philippines, a non-nuclear power, then the PRC would be condemned by the entire global community.

The United States would glass the entirety of China and erase the entire Han Race from existence. :)

Wow! And your entire country will be back into being cockroaches afterwards. Just fire, cowards. Just fire.

Friend, don't get too offended by idiotic posts by imbeciles. The United States will never allow any foreign power to touch the Philippines. The 7th Fleet would exterminate anything that would dare threaten our interests in the Philippine Archipelago. The combined might of the 7th and 5th Fleets would pulverize any threats.

us-navy.jpg



us_navy_ships_at_sea.jpg
 
.
The Future of U.S. - Chinese Relations
Conflict Is a Choice, Not a Necessity

[SNIP]

Henry A. Kissinger

Hey thanks for the article, it's quite balanced, detached from any silly nationalism or ideological battles. I'll recommend everyone reading the article before commenting.

Sadly, Kissinger is right, as the US declines as the global hegemony, any troubles it faces will be blamed on outside forces rather than the government attempting to reform and rectify the problem, in a way very similar to the CCP.

We should be glad that the world stopped being under the threat of mutual destruction with the end of the Cold War, and that this cool belligerence is probably the best anyone can hope for.
 
.
I have a question to the Chinese. what is your view on this part of the article?

The Future of U.S. - Chinese Relations
by Henry A. Kissinger
...
China's leaders will have their own powerful reasons for rejecting domestic appeals for an adversarial approach -- as indeed they have publicly proclaimed. China's imperial expansion has historically been achieved by osmosis rather than conquest, or by the conversion to Chinese culture of conquerors who then added their own territories to the Chinese domain. Dominating Asia militarily would be a formidable undertaking. The Soviet Union, during the Cold War, bordered on a string of weak countries drained by war and occupation and dependent on American troop commitments for their defense. China today faces Russia in the north; Japan and South Korea, with American military alliances, to the east; Vietnam and India to the south; and Indonesia and Malaysia not far away. This is not a constellation conducive to conquest. It is more likely to raise fears of encirclement. Each of these countries has a long military tradition and would pose a formidable obstacle if its territory or its ability to conduct an independent policy were threatened. A militant Chinese foreign policy would enhance cooperation among all or at least some of these nations, evoking China's historic nightmare, as happened in the period 2009-10.
...
China's greatest strategic fear is that an outside power or powers will establish military deployments around China's periphery capable of encroaching on China's territory or meddling in its domestic institutions. When China deemed that it faced such a threat in the past, it went to war rather than risk the outcome of what it saw as gathering trends -- in Korea in 1950, against India in 1962, along the northern border with the Soviet Union in 1969, and against Vietnam in 1979.
 
.
I have a question to the Chinese. what is your view on this part of the article?

All I have to say is that when Henry Kissinger is right, he is right. Many people in the Chinese think tanks are seeing US is trying to encircle China with military and political influence, which coincide with many people in the US think tank saying that China should be contained for the future of US dominance of the world. Henry Kissinger is one of the if not the only statesman with most real first hand experiences and knowledges on the affairs with China.
 
.
@chauism

so one of the key reasons for Chinese invasion in 1979 was the Vietnam-USSR military alliance.
The reason I am asking is, because Vietnam is thinking about making military treaty/alliance with Russia and the U.S.
What would China response?
 
.
You worried too much. Russia and U.S. are not begging for a military alliance with you; it is the other way around. Considering the China's influence on these two countries, they won't make such an offer in the near future. In addition, why will U.S. want to ally with Vietnam?

@chauism

so one of the key reasons for Chinese invasion in 1979 was the Vietnam-USSR military alliance.
The reason I am asking is, because Vietnam is thinking about making military treaty/alliance with Russia and the U.S.
What would China response?
 
.
The US see China as an enemy enemy and as competition.

What else?

US supports Japan. Japan is savage country who cannot solve her territorial disputes with China, Russia, and South Korea according to just and moral principles.
 
.
@chauism

so one of the key reasons for Chinese invasion in 1979 was the Vietnam-USSR military alliance.
The reason I am asking is, because Vietnam is thinking about making military treaty/alliance with Russia and the U.S.
What would China response?

No, it wasn't actually. The main reason for Sino vietnam war was actually Cambodia. The strategic goal for the Chinese force was to force Vietnamese main troops withdraw from Cambodia's territory and engage Chinese force in Vietnam. It was never about occupying Vietnam or making Vietnam not supporting USSR. Keep in mind that the Sino Soviet split happened in 1960 and it was long before Sino Vietnam War. Also by engaging Vietnam in a military conflict there was no way that one could hope Vietnam will be likely to shift their alliance away from Soviet, it actually did the opposite of it as the war led Vietnam to be more dependent on the Soviet Union, to which it leased a naval base at Cam Ranh Bay. When Kissinger talked about China's fear of encroachment about 1979 Vietnam, he was actually talking about China friendly Cambodia being overthrown by Vietnam and Soviet. Vietnam by then was already a lost cause for China after Ho Chi Min's death in 1972.
 
.
@chauism

so one of the key reasons for Chinese invasion in 1979 was the Vietnam-USSR military alliance.
The reason I am asking is, because Vietnam is thinking about making military treaty/alliance with Russia and the U.S.
What would China response?

You are deeply flawed in your statements, reflecting a pathetic lack of the ground reality in your mind.

First, as above-posted by others, it is not that Russia or US attempt to ally with Vietnam. Rather it is Vietnam who attempts to drag in the other powers into the conflict with China. Vietnam, by using small country strategy, tries to highjack other powers for its own interest. LOL! Don’t think the other powers have only stupid mind. They see through you Vietnam strategy. They will leverage your psychology and will make money out from you by selling you weapons and drilling your oils. But when the real conflict with China comes, they will sit sideways and to make final decision to benefit for themselves, not for you.

Second, about 1979 spanking of Vietnam. There are many reasons for it: ruthless invasion of Cambodia, shameless harassment of Chinese border people, blatant prosecution of local people (to make them notorious boat people), delirious dreaming of Indo-China federation (via annexing Cambodia and Laos), and raving confidence on Russia-Viet treaty. While China was not able to force you to retreat from Cambodia, but China seemed happy in: 1) practicing PLA troops. Since some skirmishes with Russia, PLA had no chance to touch real battle fields. Thanks to Vietnam, with Vietnamese blood, it provided the Chinese the chance to go through real battle experiences. 2) challenged Soviet-Viet treaty, and proved that it was a piece of garbage because the power is actually more focused on its own national interest than other’s, such as Vietnam’s.

Third, stop dreaming US would ally with a communist country such as Vietnam. Change your color first and denounce your communism and put your communist leaders in jail before talking other stuffs.
 
.
Instead of answering my question, you keep on posting nonsence and bullshit. So you rule out, that Vietnam joins an alliance with Russia and the U.S.
China doesn´t care, right?

Sure, Vietnam acts what it thinks for its own best interests. And of course due to the inbalance of power, we are making the South China Sea issue to an open party, we internationalize the conflict, and make riskier for China.
 
.
You are deeply flawed in your statements, reflecting a pathetic lack of the ground reality in your mind.

First, as above-posted by others, it is not that Russia or US attempt to ally with Vietnam. Rather it is Vietnam who attempts to drag in the other powers into the conflict with China. Vietnam, by using small country strategy, tries to highjack other powers for its own interest. LOL! Don’t think the other powers have only stupid mind. They see through you Vietnam strategy. They will leverage your psychology and will make money out from you by selling you weapons and drilling your oils. But when the real conflict with China comes, they will sit sideways and to make final decision to benefit for themselves, not for you.

Second, about 1979 spanking of Vietnam. There are many reasons for it: ruthless invasion of Cambodia, shameless harassment of Chinese border people, blatant prosecution of local people (to make them notorious boat people), delirious dreaming of Indo-China federation (via annexing Cambodia and Laos), and raving confidence on Russia-Viet treaty. While China was not able to force you to retreat from Cambodia, but China seemed happy in: 1) practicing PLA troops. Since some skirmishes with Russia, PLA had no chance to touch real battle fields. Thanks to Vietnam, with Vietnamese blood, it provided the Chinese the chance to go through real battle experiences. 2) challenged Soviet-Viet treaty, and proved that it was a piece of garbage because the power is actually more focused on its own national interest than other’s, such as Vietnam’s.

Third, stop dreaming US would ally with a communist country such as Vietnam. Change your color first and denounce your communism and put your communist leaders in jail before talking other stuffs.

Are you still crying for Khmer Rouge, a Chinese allies and seeking to rationalize 1979 spanking which your army was "lucky" to get?

Before attacking Vietnam, your leaders had to ask for permission of Uncle Sam and received a nod ...
 
.
Instead of answering my question, you keep on posting nonsence and bullshit. So you rule out, that Vietnam joins an alliance with Russia and the U.S.
China doesn´t care, right?

Sure, Vietnam acts what it thinks for its own best interests. And of course due to the inbalance of power, we are making the South China Sea issue to an open party, we internationalize the conflict, and make riskier for China.

Same reason people dont answer how to defend against an alien invasion.

It makes no sense that Russia will join US in an alliance against China.

Maybe come up with a more realistic scenario instead of posting nonsence and bullshit?
 
.
China is a signatory of the non-nuclear proliferation pact. If you were to hypothetically launch a nuclear strike on the Philippines, a non-nuclear power, then the PRC would be condemned by the entire global community.

The United States would glass the entirety of China and erase the entire Han Race from existence. :)
Are you sure you can take out all of our DF-41s? ;)

Unknown.jpeg


A future DF-41 force of some 32 missiles with reloads and multiple warheads would be enough for China to target every U.S. city with a population over 50,000 people, Karber said.
http://freebeacon.com/manchu-missile-launch/

There's nothing wrong with nuking a non-nuclear power like the Philippines. After all, it's their own fault they are too weak to build nukes to defend themselves.
 
. .
W
hat makes you so sure that the US cannot do the same?

Of course US can do the same, but remember, China would never be the aggressor in a nuclear exchange, since we are the only PM member who claims the non-first use policy. So who is more peaceful here?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom