What's new

The unipololar moment is over. When will the US get it?

lol, you think Japan will not ask for nuke after US pull out. I mean sure, I am pretty sure the entire Japanese race is there so the Chinese can beat them down. The only different is, WE, not you, are the one that stop Japanese from getting nuke, they can get them tomorrow if they wanted, they have enrichment capability, missile capability, miniature capability, what else you need to make an ICBM with nuclear re-entry article that Japan does not have at the moment? I am pretty sure South Korea would want to have them too.

I am not delusion to think Asian love American, but you are delusion to think Asian love Chinese.... LOL

I mean, you are like Russia, you think US is the instigator, you will be pretty surprise when we do move out from Asia

Indeed. Lee Kuan Yew once said before, the US presence in Asia benefits everyone in the region, including China.

Prudence dictates that there should be a balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region. This is reflected in a widely held consensus that the U.S. presence in the region should be sustained. A military presence does not need to be used to be useful. Its presence makes a difference and makes for peace and stability in the region. This stability serves the interests of all, including those of China.

Without US presence, the region will have to devote more resources to security. Japan and South Korea, which are already nuclear threshold states, will start nuclearizing without the US's nuclear umbrella.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has said that the Pacific Ocean is big enough to accommodate both the United States and China. But he has also said that Asian security should be left to Asians. A natural question arises: Does Xi think that the Pacific Ocean is big enough for the United States and China to coexist peacefully, with overlapping circles of friends and partners, or that it is big enough to be divided down the middle between the two powers, into rival spheres of influence? Singapore and other Asia-Pacific countries have no doubt which interpretation they prefer. Although they may not have much influence over how things will turn out, they fervently hope not to be forced to choose between the United States and China.

The U.S. security presence remains vital to the Asia-Pacific region. Without it, Japan and South Korea would be compelled to contemplate developing nuclear weapons; both are nuclear threshold states, and the subject already regularly surfaces in their public discourse, especially given North Korea’s growing nuclear weapons capabilities. Such developments are fortunately still hypothetical, but their prospect is conducive neither to stability in Northeast Asia nor to nonproliferation efforts globally.

In Southeast Asia, the U.S. Seventh Fleet has contributed to regional security since World War II, ensuring that sea lines of communication remain safe and open, which has enabled trade and stimulated economic growth. Despite its increasing military strength, China would be unable to take over the United States’ security role. Unlike the United States, China has competing maritime and territorial claims in the South China Sea with several countries in the region, which will always see China’s naval presence as an attempt to advance those claims.

...
  • LEE HSIEN LOONG is the Prime Minister of Singapore.

 
.
Indeed. Lee Kuan Yew once said before, the US presence in Asia benefits everyone in the region, including China.



Without US presence, the region will have to devote more resources to security. Japan and South Korea, which are already nuclear threshold states, will start nuclearizing without the US's nuclear umbrella.



I know you SG are dying to be white lackeys esp American ones, but dont pretend you can speak for China, its national interest is not the same as yours.
 
.
I know you SG are dying to be white lackeys esp American ones, but dont pretend you can speak for China, its national interest is not the same as yours.

Then you can speak for SK and Japan, much less Asia?

Dont worry, you thick face can hog on in Asia until kicked out by SK, Japanese and Asians in due time.
 
.
Then you can speak for SK and Japan, much less Asia?
No one like foreign boots on their soil, maybe you SG are different, SK poll show many of them like US army out of Korea even under the threat of NK now. I dont have info on any poll done on Japan, but they will kick out Americans when they are strong enough no doubt.
 
.
No one like foreign boots on their soil

I'm sure the reason why the US have so many overseas bases around the world is because the US forces these countries to allow their presence right?
 
.
Indeed. Lee Kuan Yew once said before, the US presence in Asia benefits everyone in the region, including China.



Without US presence, the region will have to devote more resources to security. Japan and South Korea, which are already nuclear threshold states, will start nuclearizing without the US's nuclear umbrella.



I think the US was more responsible in Asia maybe 30 years ago when globalization was in the interest of the billionaire class. But now that the US is losing its advantages, the deep state is dangerously lashing out and causing sabotage worldwide.
 
. .
I'm sure the reason why the US have so many overseas bases around the world is because the US forces these countries to allow their presence right?
Just ask the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan if they wanted US presence
 
.
Just ask the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan if they wanted US presence

I'm sure these 2 countries are representative of the world, that's why I need to ask them.

/

Ukraine crisis raises prospect of more states going nuclear: Veteran Singapore diplomat​


SINGAPORE - Russia's invasion of Ukraine is "sadly… perhaps the final nail in the coffin" for the nuclear non-proliferation regime, former top diplomat Bilahari Kausikan says in The Straits Times' latest Conversations on the Future.

"The lesson… many countries have taken away from the Ukraine crisis is that you have to be able to defend yourself.

"And if your likely threat is a nuclear power… I don't think you can deter nuclear power by conventional means; that's a stark fact," said the former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - currently chairman of the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore.

In North-east Asia, China is modernising its nuclear forces, and North Korea is developing ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capability, he noted.

It is a matter of time before questions will be asked regarding the efficacy of the United States' extended deterrence - the so-called nuclear umbrella, he said.

French statesman Charles de Gaulle was famously posed the rhetorical question whether, in the event of a nuclear war, New York or London would risk being destroyed to protect Paris, he recalled.

"The answer is obviously, no," said Mr Kausikan. "Similarly, I think quietly, much more quietly, people in Tokyo and so on will be asking similar questions. And I think the answers will be similar, and their actions will be eventually similar to what London and Paris did - acquire nuclear deterrents."

This does not mean Japan and South Korea are eager to become nuclear weapon states, he emphasised.

"I think they know it'll be very politically difficult, politically divisive," he said. "But (the threat from nuclear armed states) is not something that they can avert their eyes from, and hope it will go away. Because China is there. North Korea is there."

He added: "And while they will do everything they can to preserve (the US) nuclear umbrella, they know this is a delaying battle rather than something that can be decisively fixed. I don't know when, but I think the trajectory is set."

Nuclear weapons do not prevent conventional clashes or wars, but keep a lid on them, he noted.

In this respect, while the world will always be a dangerous place, a multipolar nuclear balance in the Indo-Pacific is "in a way a more stable world, because it will put an end, once and for all, once the weapons are developed and deployed, to any dream of hierarchy, whether by China or anybody else", Mr Kausikan said.

"It freezes the existing configurations," he said. "If I look at the countries involved, once you have this kind of complex nuclear balance, I think the tendency will be to reduce the temptation to adventurism."

And small countries would find that kind of multi polarity provides manoeuvring space, he added.

"In principle, this is a better world for small countries, provided… the process of getting from where we are now to where I think we will land can be managed."
 
.
I'm sure these 2 countries are representative of the world, that's why I need to ask them.
Your reasoning is defunct from those two examples alone, they didn't care what the people wanted then, who says they cared what they wanted in other parts of the world? They clearly don't follow any rules
 
.
Indeed. Lee Kuan Yew once said before, the US presence in Asia benefits everyone in the region, including China.



Without US presence, the region will have to devote more resources to security. Japan and South Korea, which are already nuclear threshold states, will start nuclearizing without the US's nuclear umbrella.




A nuclear armed Japan and South Korea is no threat to China. Nuclear weapons are deterrence weapons and is not a concern for China when China has no interests in attacking them to begin with. But rather US would no longer be able to control the two. North Korea is a fine example of that, where Kim saw nuclear weapon not only as a mean to defend himself against the U.S. but also reduce his dependence on China.
 
.
A nuclear armed Japan and South Korea is no threat to China. Nuclear weapons are deterrence weapons and is not a concern for China when China has no interests in attacking them to begin with. But rather US would no longer be able to control the two. North Korea is a fine example of that, where Kim saw nuclear weapon not only as a mean to defend himself against the U.S. but also reduce his dependence on China.
Some people like to be white slaves forever, but not everyone and US can't be there to rule them forever.
 
.
Your reasoning is defunct from those two examples alone
No one like foreign boots on their soil

^

A nuclear armed Japan and South Korea is no threat to China. Nuclear weapons are deterrence weapons and is not a concern for China when China has no interests in attacking them to begin with. But rather US would no longer be able to control the two. North Korea is a fine example of that, where Kim saw nuclear weapon not only as a mean to defend himself against the U.S. but also reduce his dependence on China.

Sure, then we should hope that SK and Japan will develop and deploy their nuclear deterrence soon. They are already nuclear threshold states.
 
.
it's ideal if China, Russia (or Independent/Free Euro) are equally, every country should have free choice economic relationship. For ex economic with China, Military with Russia, High tech with US... :))
 
.
Dont worry, you thick face can hog on in Asia until kicked out by SK, Japanese and Asians in due time.


You are just talk nonsense, you Americans will be kicked out by the Japanese in due time.
The point is, you have no say in that.

Or you can retreat back to your corner and think you are not the problem why we are here.

Just ask the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan if they wanted US presence
Well, if you seriously consider life under taliban is a lot better than life under US supported Afghan regime, then yes, you are right. But then maybe you really do prefer Taliban way of life? I don't know.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom