The Context, Conduct and Consequences of an American Naval Blockade of China

[xunzi]

We also can make nuke bomb secretly now, we will strike back and u guys will die all too. Problem for China is ur dictator Xi is so coward and doesnt wanna die in nuke war, so he will bow down to us to save his own corrupted family, who cares if some dumb Chinese peasants like u be enslaved again

You are so delusional that it is pointless to have any normal discussion. LMAO

 

[gambit]

Did I portray Imperial Japan as victim? If you can't read and digest the information, it's good to shut up as it's not a good idea to challenge me.

Not explicitly, but given the usual intellectual dishonesty of the Chinese members here, challenging and correcting you is necessary.

Imperial Japan's occupation of SE Asia pretty much prompted the embargo, not the other way around. The occupation was in Sept 1940 thanks to Vichy France. The US responded with the embargo. Given the dynamics of events at that time, we could say that both events, the surrender of SE Asia to Imperial Japan by Vichy France and the US embargo, pretty much occurred at the same time. Not literally 'at the same time', but to mean that an economic tactic to avoid a physical confrontation was already contemplated by the US by the time Vichy France ceded SE Asia to Imperial Japan.

What I'm saying is how a blockage would lead to a countermeasure, including an invasion. If you actually read the article, in order for the blockage to be successful, USA would need regional states full cooperation. These regional states are not your traditional allies like South Korea/Japan/Philippines but instead it would be Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam.


Other than Japan/South Korea/Phillippines, who in Asia will support your scheme? All have huge economic trade with us. As a matter of fact, let assume they will bite their tongue and support your scheme, do they have enough strength force to defend our ground attack?

Say that those three chose not to ally themselves with US, does that mean an automatic alliance with China to defend their economic interests with China? Not likely. The alternatives regarding antagonizing US would probably prompt them to remain neutral as China cannot coerce them into any alliance. Malaysia is physically isolated from mainland China, just in case you have not noticed. Viet Nam is a historical foe against China and in this potential conflict between US and China, neutrality is probably best. Singapore? Put that city-state in the same boat as Malaysia.

A hypothetical blockade does not need to be 100% in denial of resources. Even 50% would make it difficult for China to continue sustaining an expanding economy, like when Imperial Japan was. Look at the map and see how many sea lane choke points there are. For the South China Sea, if Australia got involved, we could leave trap for the Australians to use against China.

Here is what the article said...

In part, a blockade strategy has been overlooked because economic warfare strategies seem inherently misguided given the close commercial ties between China and the United States. But if a serious conflict between the two nations erupted, then their immediate security interests would quickly override their trade interdependence and wreak enormous economic damage on both sides, regardless of whether a blockade were employed.

The highlighted was not meant to restrict to the US and China. It applies to all regional states regardless of the degrees of economic ties to either US or China. A blockade is often a precursor to a shooting war, so by the time the it is clear that the odds of a shooting war between US and China has increased, not actually happening, all regional states would most likely made up their minds on where they would stand: US, China, or neutrality. All three options would be economically deleterious, but physical damages to their countries and their peoples would be far worse.

You see, it's not as simple as you might think, my American friends.

And yet it is you who are engaging in simplification.

 

[yusheng]

Dear are admitting that you have not that article, but asking the explanations for some points of that articles from me......

Economic progress is the top most priority of China as a nation therefore China would avoid any conflict at least for next 2 -3 decades, but my dear you could not stop others to wish a bad luck for china.....hope you would understand.

By 'Inland Trade Corridor" I mean other then seaborne trade corridors which China is building around its neighbouring countries.

Seems you don't understand me, i have not asked you for your explaination, you need to explain to yourself. when you meet a childish bullshit will you enjoy its smell deeply to make sure it is a bullshit?

as i said that artical is ture bullshit full of dramatically visions and confused

conceptions.


let alone the hot war, let's assume that blockade was successful, China has to cut off her

economy from the out world, then who would be beneficial? who will survie? it will be

another long story. have you ever think of economic war, if you did not , look some finacial war?


i don't understand that a small conflict will inevitably stop Chinese economic development, on the countrary, a controlled confliction maybe helpful just as US has done ,is doing and will do, though many times US indulged. who knows. i have to say you are brainwashed by western media.

Chinese economy is turning to balancing domestic-comsumming leading and exporting

leading policy now, what will happen in the next decade is that China will establish her

own domestic economic circle and economic community along the Asia, which will make economic blockage impossible. for example, can US ask Japany and Korea stop trading with China? very amusing.

the articel, which some Chinese government researchers think as war declearation if issued and adopted by US govvernment, is a very good excuse for Chinese government to build much more military weapons, then you will see more Chinese aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, ballistic missles appearing in the near future.

i think that is the good of the article.

 

[Jlaw]

Seems you don't understand me, i have not asked you for your explaination, you need to explain to yourself. when you meet a childish bullshit will you enjoy its smell deeply to make sure it is a bullshit?

as i said that artical is ture bullshit full of dramatically visions and confused

conceptions.


let alone the hot war, let's assume that blockade was successful, China has to cut off her

economy from the out world, then who would be beneficial? who will survie? it will be

another long story. have you ever think of economic war, if you did not , look some finacial war?


i don't understand that a small conflict will inevitably stop Chinese economic development, on the countrary, a controlled confliction maybe helpful just as US has done ,is doing and will do, though many times US indulged. who knows. i have to say you are brainwashed by western media.

Chinese economy is turning to balancing domestic-comsumming leading and exporting

leading policy now, what will happen in the next decade is that China will establish her

own domestic economic circle and economic community along the Asia, which will make economic blockage impossible. for example, can US ask Japany and Korea stop trading with China? very amusing.

the articel, which some Chinese government researchers think as war declearation if issued and adopted by US govvernment, is a very good excuse for Chinese government to build much more military weapons, then you will see more Chinese aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, ballistic missles appearing in the near future.

i think that is the good of the article.

People like to think the economy is the most important thing in China. However, sovereignty and the right to exist as a nation is more important. If a blockade should happen, regardless of economic consequences, China will declare war and rightfully so.

 

[NiceGuy]

You are so delusional that it is pointless to have any normal discussion. LMAO

is it hard for u to admit the Truth ?? China is controlled by dictator Xi and his corrupted family, and the lives of dumb peasants like u are as cheap as cockroachs. Xi doesnt want nuke war bcz he wont waste his suit life for a cockroach like u, who cares if some of u die of lung cancer at the age of 8 or starving to death due to naval blockade. Thats the truth

 

[xunzi]

is it hard for u to admit the Truth ?? China is controlled by dictator Xi and his corrupted family, and the lives of dumb peasants like u are as cheap as cockroachs. Xi doesnt want nuke war bcz he wont waste his suit life for a cockroach like u, who cares if some of u die of lung cancer at the age of 8 or starving to death due to naval blockade. Thats the truth

Get away from me man. You are a delusional. Remind me of a psycho on the street who kept repeating the same shit over and over despite I just cock on his head to stop. LMAO

 

[Han dominance]

If those vulgar repulsive Yankees ever do a naval blockade against the Chinese motherland, we will wipe that disgusting Yankee species off this planet.

It will make their Korean War defeat look like a Sunday school picnic in comparison.

This time they won't be facing our volunteer army, they will be facing the PLA. Even our volunteer army was more than good enough to humiliate those disgusting Yankees.

 

[xunzi]

Not explicitly, but given the usual intellectual dishonesty of the Chinese members here, challenging and correcting you is necessary.

Imperial Japan's occupation of SE Asia pretty much prompted the embargo, not the other way around. The occupation was in Sept 1940 thanks to Vichy France. The US responded with the embargo. Given the dynamics of events at that time, we could say that both events, the surrender of SE Asia to Imperial Japan by Vichy France and the US embargo, pretty much occurred at the same time. Not literally 'at the same time', but to mean that an economic tactic to avoid a physical confrontation was already contemplated by the US by the time Vichy France ceded SE Asia to Imperial Japan.

Excuse me? Intellectual dishonesty, fabrication, and manipulation is what Uncle Sam's children are best at. LOL

That is a technicality. Japan invaded China. The US told Japan to remove her force out of China. Japan would not. Japan then invaded French Indochina, not the whole Southeast Asia, and an agreement with France allowed The Vichy French Govt to continue occupying Indochina to cock-block material import into China. In response, the US stopped raw material import and put an embargo to Japan. This prompted Japan to find alternative raw materials, and so they invaded Dutch East Indies and kick out Vichy French in Indochina and slowly occupying ALL Southeast Asia. That is the timeline, my friend.

The US always contemplated a physical confrontation with Japan and viewed it as inevitable dating back to 1920. All scheme was created by the US to find a reason to involve in WWII.

Say that those three chose not to ally themselves with US, does that mean an automatic alliance with China to defend their economic interests with China? Not likely. The alternatives regarding antagonizing US would probably prompt them to remain neutral as China cannot coerce them into any alliance. Malaysia is physically isolated from mainland China, just in case you have not noticed. Viet Nam is a historical foe against China and in this potential conflict between US and China, neutrality is probably best. Singapore? Put that city-state in the same boat as Malaysia.

A hypothetical blockade does not need to be 100% in denial of resources. Even 50% would make it difficult for China to continue sustaining an expanding economy, like when Imperial Japan was. Look at the map and see how many sea lane choke points there are. For the South China Sea, if Australia got involved, we could leave trap for the Australians to use against China.

Here is what the article said...

The highlighted was not meant to restrict to the US and China. It applies to all regional states regardless of the degrees of economic ties to either US or China. A blockade is often a precursor to a shooting war, so by the time the it is clear that the odds of a shooting war between US and China has increased, not actually happening, all regional states would most likely made up their minds on where they would stand: US, China, or neutrality. All three options would be economically deleterious, but physical damages to their countries and their peoples would be far worse.


And yet it is you who are engaging in simplification.

As you said, look at the map.

Majority of our sea imports go through the Strait of Malacca, which is a narrow path protected by Malaysia and Singapore. In order for the US naval blockade to be successful, like I said, you would need these two full cooperation. Not half-***, neutral, but complete full cooperation to really put a real damage on our growing economy because we have reserve and land route supply to continue and sustain our war effort unlike Imperial Japan that at geographical disadvantage but it still didn't stop Japan from continuing their war effort. Therefore a hypothetical blockade is impossible to accomplish without worldwide consensus. Due to facing potential repercussion from us, it would not be wise to participate. If they stay neutral, then it's useless anyway. But I believe staying neutral is impossible for these countries one way or another.

Malaysia will not participate. This I am sure. They have no reason to participate to help the US gaining supremacy. LOL Sino-Vietnam historic relation is up-down and not as historical rival as you like to claim. Vietnam had never been our foe. Our historical foes are the Xiongnu, Mongolian, and Jurchen from the North. The Southern Kingdom were historical pacifist and were non-threaten to us. This tell me you don't completely understand the dynamics of Sino-Vietnam relation. After all, we fought together to repel the French and American in Vietnam War right?

Like I said many times, a war with China and US would be impossible not to involve other parties. Whether they are pro-US, pro-China, or neutral is irrelevant because neither sides, US/China, will get an upper hand in the war effort unless these parties fully participated. And if they are not participated, then US/China would force them to or they will get occupied.

 

[gambit]

Excuse me? Intellectual dishonesty, fabrication, and manipulation is what Uncle Sam's children are best at. LOL

That is a technicality. Japan invaded China. The US told Japan to remove her force out of China. Japan would not. Japan then invaded French Indochina, not the whole Southeast Asia, and an agreement with France allowed The Vichy French Govt to continue occupying Indochina to cock-block material import into China. In response, the US stopped raw material import and put an embargo to Japan. This prompted Japan to find alternative raw materials, and so they invaded Dutch East Indies and kick out Vichy French in Indochina and slowly occupying ALL Southeast Asia. That is the timeline, my friend.

The US always contemplated a physical confrontation with Japan and viewed it as inevitable dating back to 1920. All scheme was created by the US to find a reason to involve in WWII.

Yes, intellectual dishonesty is the trademark and the modus operandi of the Chinese members here.

I failed to see the timeline, what you essentially repeated from what I said, as 'evidence' that the US was actively seeking a war with Japan. If that was the case, the US would not have engaged in an economic embargo to start. An embargo is not a blockade. An embargo is essentially a act of protest using an economic method. Japan could have sought access to metals elsewhere. Tough, yes, but that economic embargo was confined to US sources. A blockade would be to station access denial methods, ships in this case, to prevent ships from any country to land on mainland China. You said that by this economic embargo, the US 'forced' Japan to invade other Asian countries, as if Japan had no choice.

Here...

The Context, Conduct and Consequences of an American Naval Blockade of China

A blockage is an act of war and would lead to an all-out war, period. The US did it to Japan in WWII, forcing them to annex Southeast Asia for resources in their the war effort.

That is like saying the presence of a few people on one street 'forced' the burglar to go on to the next street.

Imperial Japan raped China. The US responded with its own moral protest, the severance of an economic relationship, therefore, Imperial Japan was 'forced' to rape another Asian country.

Nice...

As you said, look at the map.

Majority of our sea imports go through the Strait of Malacca, which is a narrow path protected by Malaysia and Singapore. In order for the US naval blockade to be successful, like I said, you would need these two full cooperation. Not half-***, neutral, but complete full cooperation to really put a real damage on our growing economy because we have reserve and land route supply to continue and sustain our war effort unlike Imperial Japan that at geographical disadvantage but it still didn't stop Japan from continuing their war effort. Therefore a hypothetical blockade is impossible to accomplish without worldwide consensus. Due to facing potential repercussion from us, it would not be wise to participate. If they stay neutral, then it's useless anyway. But I believe staying neutral is impossible for these countries one way or another.

Malaysia will not participate. This I am sure. They have no reason to participate to help the US gaining supremacy.

Neither Malaysia nor Singapore can contain piracy in the Strait, let alone deal with possible presence of one or more likely several US subs lurking somewhere inside or at either/both ends of the strait. If Malaysia and Singapore takes steps to protect China's access and ships inside the strait, that means both countries sided with China and therefore fair game for US. The reality is that we do not need to be so close to the strait. Look at your own map and see where we can harass ships suspected of going to China. Insurance rates will rise, captains will be reluctant to be caught in the middle of a conflict between two great powers, and like I said, success does not need to be 100% to be painful for China in this blockade.

LOL Sino-Vietnam historic relation is up-down and not as historical rival as you like to claim. Vietnam had never been our foe. Our historical foes are the Xiongnu, Mongolian, and Jurchen from the North. The Southern Kingdom were historical pacifist and were non-threaten to us. This tell me you don't completely understand the dynamics of Sino-Vietnam relation. After all, we fought together to repel the French and American in Vietnam War right?

Please...That is a laugh. Every Vietnamese schoolboy and schoolgirl know of the historical wars between China and Viet Nam. I went thru such lessons often enough. I guess that the Party forgot to transmit to you information about that little border spat between 'brothers'?

Like I said many times, a war with China and US would be impossible not to involve other parties. Whether they are pro-US, pro-China, or neutral is irrelevant because neither sides, US/China, will get an upper hand in the war effort unless these parties fully participated. And if they are not participated, then US/China would force them to or they will get occupied.

Sorry...But you are seriously wrong here. Neutrality is always an option, at least the facade of it anyway. We do not need the active military cooperation of other countries to make serious economic pain to China. If we cannot convince any/all to our side, they would be wise enough to consider the alternatives and will take neutrality. Not impossible at all.

 

[xunzi]

Yes, intellectual dishonesty is the trademark and the modus operandi of the Chinese members here.

I failed to see the timeline, what you essentially repeated from what I said, as 'evidence' that the US was actively seeking a war with Japan. If that was the case, the US would not have engaged in an economic embargo to start. An embargo is not a blockade. An embargo is essentially a act of protest using an economic method. Japan could have sought access to metals elsewhere. Tough, yes, but that economic embargo was confined to US sources. A blockade would be to station access denial methods, ships in this case, to prevent ships from any country to land on mainland China. You said that by this economic embargo, the US 'forced' Japan to invade other Asian countries, as if Japan had no choice.

Here...

The Context, Conduct and Consequences of an American Naval Blockade of China

That is like saying the presence of a few people on one street 'forced' the burglar to go on to the next street.

Imperial Japan raped China. The US responded with its own moral protest, the severance of an economic relationship, therefore, Imperial Japan was 'forced' to rape another Asian country.

Nice...

Oh right, the high-horse American hypocrisy had been exposed by scandal didn't teach you a thing about American accusation cannot be 100% trusted?

My friend, you might want to re-read your American history more. The US needs to find a legitimate reason to enter the war with Japan without explicitly outlandish provocation. The plan is to provoke Japan to make the first move by an economic embargo, particular oil shipment in which Japan needs to sustain their war effort. Because Japan cannot find a quick resolution for alternative shipping resource from other sources as you like to claim. This led Japan to invade East Dutch Indies for that alternative resources as a quick solution for their war effort. Then the Pearl Harbor attack was Japanese solution to prevent or slow down the US battle ships moving in to aid the East Dutch Indies. And it was an icing on the cake. When the US officially declared war on Japan, it was an all-out war that brought the US naval to implement a blockage to sink as many Japanese merchants and military ships as possible in a campaign from 1942-1945. This situation will be the same to us. The US will find a reason to go to war with China and will implement a blockage in which we will respond, of course.

Neither Malaysia nor Singapore can contain piracy in the Strait, let alone deal with possible presence of one or more likely several US subs lurking somewhere inside or at either/both ends of the strait. If Malaysia and Singapore takes steps to protect China's access and ships inside the strait, that means both countries sided with China and therefore fair game for US. The reality is that we do not need to be so close to the strait. Look at your own map and see where we can harass ships suspected of going to China. Insurance rates will rise, captains will be reluctant to be caught in the middle of a conflict between two great powers, and like I said, success does not need to be 100% to be painful for China in this blockade.

My friend, if you are employing a blockage without relevant foreign states cooperation, you are essentially violating sovereignty of another states especially if it is within their EEZ in the Malacca Strait. And if the USA unilaterally did that, the world will regard the US like a mad dog. LOL Yes, I realize the strength of US military but trust me, giving us another 20 to 50 years, we are not scary to face you 1-1 on the high sea, especially if we get approval from the world community to lesson your hegemony.

You are so stupid or something. We have so much trade with the rest of the world. If we suffer economically , you think it would not affect other country economies? This is not mentioning we will probably respond with an economic nuke on you since you owe us trillion of debt.

Please...That is a laugh. Every Vietnamese schoolboy and schoolgirl know of the historical wars between China and Viet Nam. I went thru such lessons often enough. I guess that the Party forgot to transmit to you information about that little border spat between 'brothers'?

You mean the 1979? You are laughable though and need to learn the historical relation between Sino-Vietnam. Vietnam and Korea are two states that border us for thousands of year, it was bound to have skirmish, dispute, and war. What you don't understand is that there are peaceful time co-existence between us as well in the form of either alliance, collaboration, or tribunal relation. Like I just taught you, historically, we regard the Xiongnu, Mongol, and Jurchen as the biggest threat to our existence and thus the Great Wall was built in the North. Whether the Vietnamese regards us as their biggest rival, it is up to their opinion. It cannot be regard a rival when one side doesn't believe so. You understand, my friend?

Sorry...But you are seriously wrong here. Neutrality is always an option, at least the facade of it anyway. We do not need the active military cooperation of other countries to make serious economic pain to China. If we cannot convince any/all to our side, they would be wise enough to consider the alternatives and will take neutrality. Not impossible at all.

Nope, neutrality is impossible and like I told you, will lead to occupation and their sovereign rights will get violated. I bet the US would violate their sovereignty than it is China. It is just sad that US don't respect the sovereignty of other country. But hey, when you have the biggest toy, who can blame you? LMAO

 

[gambit]

Oh right, the high-horse American hypocrisy had been exposed by scandal didn't teach you a thing about American accusation cannot be 100% trusted?

My friend, you might want to re-read your American history more. The US needs to find a legitimate reason to enter the war with Japan without explicitly outlandish provocation. The plan is to provoke Japan to make the first move by an economic embargo, particular oil shipment in which Japan needs to sustain their war effort. Because Japan cannot find a quick resolution for alternative shipping resource from other sources as you like to claim. This led Japan to invade East Dutch Indies for that alternative resources as a quick solution for their war effort. Then the Pearl Harbor attack was Japanese solution to prevent or slow down the US battle ships moving in to aid the East Dutch Indies. And it was an icing on the cake. When the US officially declared war on Japan, it was an all-out war that brought the US naval to implement a blockage to sink as many Japanese merchants and military ships as possible in a campaign from 1942-1945. This situation will be the same to us. The US will find a reason to go to war with China and will implement a blockage in which we will respond, of course.

I read history well enough, most likely far more than you do and probably ever will.

The Craigie-Arita, or Arita-Craigie, Agreement between Britain and Imperial Japan essentially told the world, especially the Japanese hardliners inside the Japanese government, that both Britain and the US were helpless, militarily and politically, against Japan regarding Manchuria. And that assessment was technically correct, the US could not have done anything other than to express moral outrage.

Here => 24 Jul 1939 - BRITAIN PRESERVING Agreement With Japan MANY POI...

That treaty basically had Britain refused to condemn Imperial Japan while not legitimizing Japanese atrocities on mainland China. By invading and annexing Manchuria, Japan violated the Nine Power Agreement, which expects all countries to respect Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Nine-Power Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nine-Power Treaty (九カ国条約 Kyūkakoku Jōyaku?) or Nine Power Agreement (Chinese:九國公約) was a treaty affirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China as per the Open Door Policy, after the Suzerainty system fell apart by the Western invasion in East Asia that outlawed Chinese capability for the "Close Door Policy" since Qing Dynasty, signed by all of the attendees to the Washington Naval Conference on 6 February 1922. The Nine-Power Treaty with the Shangtung Treaty in the Washington Naval Conference as a juncture effectively made Japan to return the territorial control of the Shandong Province (see Shandong Problem) to Republic of China.

Fearing that the European powers and Japan were preparing to carve China up into colonies, Hay also added provisions that Chinese territorial and administrative integrity should be maintained.

However, the Nine-Power Treaty lacked any enforcement regulations, and when violated by Japan during its invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and creation of Manchukuo, the United States could do little more than issue protests and impose economic sanctions.

The US never had any colonial interests in mainland China and was trying to preserve some semblance of Chinese respect even after the Euros were already in play. And then Imperial Japan did the worst of them all by invading and annexing Manchuria.

Further, Takada Toshitane of the Navy Ministry, who planned the French Indochina invasion, admitted that they were taken by surprise at America's offense on what Japan did. If Japan was surprised, that mean they never took any sort of response from the US, political or otherwise, into consideration for Indochina. So it mean the American embargo was not the prompt they needed. And if at that time the best that the US could muster up was an economic embargo, your attempt to portray the US as hungry for war against Imperial Japan goes contrary to what history actually recorded.

What we have here in you...A Chinese living in the US, a country that have far more respect for basic human rights than his China, is distorting history and sacrificing the deaths of millions of his fellow Chinese at the hands of Imperial Japan, just so he could poke the host country in the eye.

My friend, if you are employing a blockage without relevant foreign states cooperation, you are essentially violating sovereignty of another states especially if it is within their EEZ in the Malacca Strait. And if the USA unilaterally did that, the world will regard the US like a mad dog.

Buddy, the US flew recon flights inside China's EEZ. Routinely. And there is nothing China can do about it. An EEZ is not the same as territorial waters, which is only 12 miles extended from shore. If military missions are protected during peace, you can bet your *** that in a conflict between two great powers, US and China, Malaysia and Singapore will do nothing regarding the strait.

LOL Yes, I realize the strength of US military but trust me, giving us another 20 to 50 years, we are not scary to face you 1-1 on the high sea, especially if we get approval from the world community to lesson your hegemony.

And what do you think the US will do within that timeframe? Nothing? As for world approval, it means nothing if they do not fight alongside with China.

You are so stupid or something. We have so much trade with the rest of the world. If we suffer economically , you think it would not affect other country economies? This is not mentioning we will probably respond with an economic nuke on you since you owe us trillion of debt.

The bulk of US debt is borned by the American people, not by China. Any economic hardship on US will be tenfold upon China.

You mean the 1979? You are laughable though and need to learn the historical relation between Sino-Vietnam. Vietnam and Korea are two states that border us for thousands of year, it was bound to have skirmish, dispute, and war. What you don't understand is that there are peaceful time co-existence between us as well in the form of either alliance, collaboration, or tribunal relation. Like I just taught you, historically, we regard the Xiongnu, Mongol, and Jurchen as the biggest threat to our existence and thus the Great Wall was built in the North. Whether the Vietnamese regards us as their biggest rival, it is up to their opinion. It cannot be regard a rival when one side doesn't believe so. You understand, my friend?

Yeah...You go on believing that Viet Nam will mobilize her military to defend China at China's beckon.

Nope, neutrality is impossible and like I told you, will lead to occupation and their sovereign rights will get violated. I bet the US would violate their sovereignty than it is China. It is just sad that US don't respect the sovereignty of other country. But hey, when you have the biggest toy, who can blame you? LMAO

What you told is nothing more than baseless opinions, of which we have plenty from the Chinese camp here.

 

[Nassr]

……………. The Chinese on the other hand have handled the regional affairs rather prudently and in a manner which is in consonance with their interests. Their first intent is quite apparent, that while maintaining a regional stability maintain an appropriate balance of power in the South China Sea. Concurrently they also intend to project southwards into the Indian Ocean in order to bypass the strategic choke points at Malacca, Sunda and Lambok Straits in order to gain direct access to Indian Ocean. At this stage however, there is no indication of an apparent Chinese intent to militarily intrude into the sensitive Pacific pathway leading to mainland US.

……………………….

China’s extension into the Indian Ocean is a strategic necessity for sustenance of her economic rise. However Chinese mainland does not border the shores of main Indian Ocean and can only transit through other littoral states. Pakistan and Myanmar are the only two states which can provide politically viable trade and energy transit zones. No wonder both these countries were not invited to become members of Indian sponsored, Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IORARC).

In future therefore, these two countries by default would become an extension of China into the Indian Ocean and thus acquire strategic importance for China in geo-political and geo-strategic terms. In these emerging environments, an attempted Indian naval blockade of Pakistani ports would be construed as blockade of mainland China. In addition to this, US interests in Afghanistan and beyond are also supported through Pakistani ports. The colluding interests of US, China and Pakistan thus puts a limit on Indian navy’s coercive initiatives.

US is not likely to obstruct Chinese entry into the strategic Indian Ocean zones and would even discourage India to counter such moves, provided the motive of such moves is primarily economic and not aimed at intrusive military presence. By not positioning its naval assets at ports it built in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, China has attempted to reinforce its non-military intent and dispel international concerns. Also, taking a leaf out of US strategy, the Chinese are responding in a quid pro quo by shaping and hedging of their own while continuing to improve and refine its response capabilities.

Greater Indian Ocean: A Peaceful Geo-Political Pivot Or A Contentious Source Of Hedging Eurasia Review

 

[ephone]

If it is impossible in today's world, it will be impossible in the future as well with the fast development of Chinese military power.

Agreed that Naval Blockade of China is not possible in today's world, but in my opinion this articles give some clues about the Strategic thought process of certain strategic circles of USA, they want China to be engaged in conflict with neighboring countries.

Secondly they are enjoying slightly strong position in the region due to their strategic alliance with Japan, Korea & India, their second target is the purposed inland trade corridor from South Asia.

 

[Destro]

If it is impossible in today's world, it will be impossible in the future as well with the fast development of Chinese military power.

It will be possible.....in the Yankee pipe dreams and computer simulations.

Just like it was proven that the Yankees will easily win the Korean War within a few weeks

 

[NiceGuy]

It will be possible.....in the Yankee pipe dreams and computer simulations.

Just like it was proven that the Yankees will easily win the Korean War within a few weeks

Korea dont have important location, thats why US didnt care. But if China try to 'free' Taiwan, US navy will crush cheap PLAN into pieces within few hours