jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Here are the reasons:
1. The opening line of the article is "Chinese front Organization" is totally wrong. It is the Australia-China institute, an independent study center by the University of Technology, Sydney. Australia China Relations Institute | University of Technology, Sydney
What the studies foolishness have to do with Where the poll were done? By the way, the Australian Chinese Relation Institute is indeed a Chinese mouthpiece, they were funded by the Chinese Chairman of Yuhu Group, which just bought several Shopping centre in Sydney and Melbourne. I used to work in Eastwood, they just bought the Eastwood Shopping centre a few years ago.
Being in Australia and hiring Australian does not make it a "Australian-Chinese Institute), RT USA is an US News channel hired American and funded by Russia, would you consider RT USA is an Russian Mouthpiece or American Mouthpiece?
2. Even if it were a Chinese institute, then this presumption that a survey is a good enough reason to presume that they are preparing for war is incorrect to say the least.
The study is about view on Australia about War between China and Japan.......It's not about presuming a war is preparing from either side in reality.
So, when a study is carry out about how is the chance for war between country A and country B, by definition that mean Country A have to be in preparation to go to war with Country B?
3. Most of the publicity of the poll was done by western media, not chinese media.
Two minutes ago, you just claim the Poll was done by an Western Organisation not a Chinese Organisation. And now you do a 180 and talk about the publish is only been done in the west, not in China??
But then again, where does it published have any relation of this article being foolish?? So you saying article published in China is smarter and Article published in the west are more foolish??
4. "Firstly, it will provide legitimacy for the regime as economic growth stalls."
The above statement presumes that Chinese economic growth is going to stall, a sentiment not shared by the World Bank, IMF, and most of the leading Economists around the world. China hasn't even reached the middle income group right now, with at least 7 years left to reach there.
Rather, a war would be perhaps the only way in which Chinese economy will actually suffer.
But did the article say the war will be happening overnight or tomorrow?
5. "China will approach the war “asymmetrically, as terrorists do"
This is essentially a lame effort to insult the Chinese, by comparing asymmetric warfare with terrorism. Asymmetric warfare has been as old as warfare itself.
Did you read the whole paragraph?
He said, the terrorist would be on the low end of asymmetric warfare and China would show the US the high end of it.
And China, no matter how strong they become the past 10 year, would not survive a conventional war outside their domain, mush less in Japanese domain. and Much, Much less with the US, and if a war have to be fought between US, Japan and China, china would have no choice but to go asymmetric.
That's a quite reasonable to assume, it would be quite foolish if you assume China can survive a Japanese and US assault outside Chinese mainland.
6. "More likely they will attack US bases in the region at least as far out as Guam on the basis that the United States will be entering the war anyway and they are better off getting a surprise attack in first."
Not even the WORST crackhead in Beijing, and there are few idiots in Beijing, wants to do anything with US Bases. US can't be defeated in any forseeable future, and they know it. The worst case scenario will be that Beijing attempts to take Senkaku, even that is very unlikely.
Again, that's not foolish, in fact, that has been done before, that's why Japan attack pearl harbor during WW2, because they know attacking Singapore, Hong Kong, and Guam both colony of British and US would inevitable draw US into war. The only logical thing to do is to attack and destroy their War fighting capability before they can bring it down on you eventually.
I will think that way as a military commander Myself, and I would have done so again if I was in charge with Imperial Japanese force during WW2, Sad fact is, the Japanese did not follow up and attack US and keep the pressure, instead they gone for the route of lighting attack the Pacific Island and try to fortify it out.
This is not foolish, this is a sound military planning.
7. "After the initial Chinese onslaught, the campaign would settle down to a blockade of shipping to China conducted beyond the reach of Chinese aircraft. China wouldn’t run out of oil because they are building a large stockpile and they could easily cut consumption down to the level of domestic production of 4 million barrels per day. But 26% of the economy is export-related and so economic activity would collapse. The effect of the blockade in the rest of the world would be a major boost to economic activity as companies tried to make good the loss of Chinese supply. "
This guy doesn't make an attempt to be even consistent. Just a few paragraph before he is assuming Chinese economic collapse, to counter which they would declare a war, but then again, he is himself hypothesizing that Chinese economy will collapse after the war. Why would they then have a war to just collapse their economy?
Also, a war with China in the region will essentially paralyze the whole of Asia Pacific, which is THE most important trading area in the world. That would have global effects.
He said stuck, not collapse before the war.
The problem is, again, THIS HAD HAPPENED BEFORE.
That's when Argentina have their own Economic problem they can't solve, and they divert attention to invade a small island called Malvina in Argentina, Falklands in England.
Exact the same happens as history goes, which I don't want to talk about it again. With the only difference is UK being a lot further to Falklands than Japan is to Senkaku.
I don't understand why it is foolish if he is talking about stuff that happened BEFORE...
and you are saying World Trade will simply collapse if Chinese was destroyed or collapse in a war? Do remember trade happens before Chinese Growths or even China become . as long as there are country willing to buy and country willing to sell, there will always be trade, maybe it will not be as profitible as before, but world trade won't simply died when one part of the world gone to hell. Simply the reason is, no part of the world is bigger or more important than the world, as long as the world remain, there will be trade.
China is not that big and important and cannot be replace, again, EVERYWHERE and EVERYTHING can be replace, for a price. If the price is worth to pay by the businessman, then yes, the replacement will happens.
So, simply, a war with China will paralyse the whole Asia, is not true
8. "What if you don’t like the idea of the US being involved in a war with China? Well stop buying anything made in China. The US takes 17% of China’s exports and if that dried up, the Chinese economy would shrink by 4.5%. The social dislocation that would cause might be enough to topple the warhawk who is driving the Chinese aggression, President Xi Jinping. Until President Xi is gone, prepare for war."
He has already shown before that he knew nothing about economics. This statement is just the feather in his intellectually dishonest, manipulative, biased cap.
lol.
well, he is being patriotic, not being foolish.
Being foolish is saying Chinese trade or American trade cannot be replace.
in fact, a lot of westerner are very conscious about buying stuff that's locally made, can you say they are foolish?
Finally, the next time don't presume anything at the outset. I didn't give reason because it seemed obvious to me. This article is brainwork of a person so immersed in his hatred that he started hallucinating scenarios as crazy as that.
I did not assume or presume anything when I am commenting on something someone wrote, I read then I comment, and unless the article display utter stupidity, i will not say the article is foolish.
Indeed, it may have said something you are not agree with (In fact I did not agree with some part of what this article claim) but then it does not mean I think this article is foolish.