Will China go to war with Japan?

[deisik]

But China did actually bully Russia in 1960s. It even came to armed clashes along the border.

During the Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Russians over-ran Chinese positions in a few weeks time while suffering only a few dozen casualties (compared to ~ 1,000 for the PLA). China had its massive manpower. Wanted to check its' efficiency and therefore poked the Soviets. The Russians returned in kind and the Chinese kept quiet ever since.

So it seems that the Asian tiger has finally licked its wounds and is now searching for a new "prey" to sink its teeth into...

[jones31]

But China did actually bully Russia in 1960s. It even came to armed clashes along the border.

During the Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Russians over-ran Chinese positions in a few weeks time while suffering only a few dozen casualties (compared to ~ 1,000 for the PLA). China had its massive manpower. Wanted to check its' efficiency and therefore poked the Soviets. The Russians returned in kind and the Chinese kept quiet ever since.

 

That border conflict was mostly used for testing purposes , both to equipment and the possible involvement  of the US.
The both sides understand it's better to stay calm and have a drink.

[deisik]

I wonder what would happen if Japan started bullying Russia over disputed islands of South Sakhalin which were taken by Russia after the WWII. Formally they are still at war without peace treaty signed between the states...

Those small islands (or rather two small islands plus a few rocks) are completely worthless. On the other hand, valuable gas deposits are located near the Shankaku Islands (the reason for current problems).

So there is no chance of a conflict between Russia and Japan.

Those small islands may be completely worthless as such but he who controls them also controls the La Pérouse Strait which divides the southern part of Sakhalin from the northern part of the Japanese island of Hokkaido...

[bryant.coleman]

Those small islands are almost 1/4 of Japan.
According to wikipedia:
"Sakhalin is a classic "primary sector of the economy" relying on oil and gas exports, coal mining, forestry, and fishing. Limited quantities of rye, wheat, oats, barley and vegetables are grown, although the growing season averages less than 100 days.[17]
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and economic liberalization, Sakhalin has experienced an oil boom with extensive petroleum exploration and mining by most large oil multinational corporations. The oil and natural gas reserves contain an estimated 14 billion barrels (2.2 km³) of oil and 96 trillion cubic feet (2,700 km³) of gas and are being developed under production-sharing agreement contracts involving international oil companies like ExxonMobil and Shell."

Those small islands may be completely worthless as such but he who controls them also controls the La Pérouse Strait which divides the southern part of Sakhalin from the northern part of the Japanese island of Hokkaido...

Both of you got it wrong. Japan has "defacto" agreed that the Sakhalin is a part of Russia. The ongoing dispute is regarding the Southern Kuril islands (on the North-east of Japan, far away from Sakhalin). These islands consists of three main islands (Iturup - 313,900 hectares, Kunashir - 149,000 ha, Shikotan - 22,500 ha) and a few rocks.

The funny thing is that there was never an ethnic Japanese population in these islands (unlike South Sakhalin). It was once inhabited by the now near-extinct Kuril Ainu tribe. Some 100-200 of them currently live in Russia, but they have lost their culture and language. In Japan, the few who had migrated to Hokkaido became extinct soon after the WW2. The current population of S Kurils is ~20,000 and almost entirely consisting of Whites.

However, Japan is home to the Hokkaido Ainu tribe (numbers around 15,000 mixed race individuals), which is distantly related to the Kuril Ainu.

[deisik]

Those small islands are almost 1/4 of Japan.
According to wikipedia:
"Sakhalin is a classic "primary sector of the economy" relying on oil and gas exports, coal mining, forestry, and fishing. Limited quantities of rye, wheat, oats, barley and vegetables are grown, although the growing season averages less than 100 days.[17]
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and economic liberalization, Sakhalin has experienced an oil boom with extensive petroleum exploration and mining by most large oil multinational corporations. The oil and natural gas reserves contain an estimated 14 billion barrels (2.2 km³) of oil and 96 trillion cubic feet (2,700 km³) of gas and are being developed under production-sharing agreement contracts involving international oil companies like ExxonMobil and Shell."

Those small islands may be completely worthless as such but he who controls them also controls the La Pérouse Strait which divides the southern part of Sakhalin from the northern part of the Japanese island of Hokkaido...

Both of you got it wrong. Japan has "defacto" agreed that the Sakhalin is a part of Russia. The ongoing dispute is regarding the Southern Kuril islands (on the North-east of Japan, far away from Sakhalin). These islands consists of three main islands (Iturup - 313,900 hectares, Kunashir - 149,000 ha, Shikotan - 22,500 ha) and a few rocks.

So what's incorrect about my point exactly? It has been pretty well known (or rather obvious) since the end of the war that Russia grabbed these small islands in order to establish their control over the strait. In fact, Stalin at first was planning to occupy the whole island of Hokkaido

Please clarify what I got wrong...

[psyclon]

Those small islands are almost 1/4 of Japan.
According to wikipedia:
"Sakhalin is a classic "primary sector of the economy" relying on oil and gas exports, coal mining, forestry, and fishing. Limited quantities of rye, wheat, oats, barley and vegetables are grown, although the growing season averages less than 100 days.[17]
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and economic liberalization, Sakhalin has experienced an oil boom with extensive petroleum exploration and mining by most large oil multinational corporations. The oil and natural gas reserves contain an estimated 14 billion barrels (2.2 km³) of oil and 96 trillion cubic feet (2,700 km³) of gas and are being developed under production-sharing agreement contracts involving international oil companies like ExxonMobil and Shell."

Those small islands may be completely worthless as such but he who controls them also controls the La Pérouse Strait which divides the southern part of Sakhalin from the northern part of the Japanese island of Hokkaido...

Both of you got it wrong. Japan has "defacto" agreed that the Sakhalin is a part of Russia. The ongoing dispute is regarding the Southern Kuril islands (on the North-east of Japan, far away from Sakhalin). These islands consists of three main islands (Iturup - 313,900 hectares, Kunashir - 149,000 ha, Shikotan - 22,500 ha) and a few rocks.

The funny thing is that there was never an ethnic Japanese population in these islands (unlike South Sakhalin). It was once inhabited by the now near-extinct Kuril Ainu tribe. Some 100-200 of them currently live in Russia, but they have lost their culture and language. In Japan, the few who had migrated to Hokkaido became extinct soon after the WW2. The current population of S Kurils is ~20,000 and almost entirely consisting of Whites.

However, Japan is home to the Hokkaido Ainu tribe (numbers around 15,000 mixed race individuals), which is distantly related to the Kuril Ainu.

Like that, it is only a smaller area, not very significant to the Japanese for reasons other than national pride. At least, that's how I see it.

[bryant.coleman]

So what's incorrect about my point exactly? It has been pretty well known (or rather obvious) since the end of the war that Russia grabbed these small islands in order to establish their control over the strait. In fact, Stalin at first was planning to occupy the whole island of Hokkaido
Please clarify what I got wrong...

See this:


You said who ever controls Iturup and Kunashir will gain the control of also controls the La Pérouse Strait.

That is wrong. La Pérouse Strait is far away (North-west of the disputed area).

[deisik]

So what's incorrect about my point exactly? It has been pretty well known (or rather obvious) since the end of the war that Russia grabbed these small islands in order to establish their control over the strait. In fact, Stalin at first was planning to occupy the whole island of Hokkaido
Please clarify what I got wrong...

See this:


You said who ever controls Iturup and Kunashir will gain the control of also controls the La Pérouse Strait.

That is wrong. La Pérouse Strait is far away (North-west of the disputed area).

Yes, you are right about the names, but the truth is still by my side. The possession of these otherwise worthless islands allows Russia to get full control over that part of the sea (the Sea of Okhotsk to be precise)...

[bryant.coleman]

Yes, you are right about the names, but the truth is still by my side. The possession of these otherwise worthless islands allows Russia to get full control over that part of the sea (the Sea of Okhotsk to be precise)...

Sea of Okhostsk - Yes.

La Pérouse Strait - No.

Big difference. The ocean boundaries between Japan and Russia are undisputed and well defined up to the North of the Shiretoko peninsula. Only the marine region to the East of the Shiretoko peninsula is disputed.

[Jcw188]

How long should the US have this defense pact with Japan?  and if Japan causes the war with China why should the US side with Japan?  I am sick of the US trying to get involved in other nations' issues when we are arguing over islands with no clear answer.  Yes it's over islands but it's for economic reasons.  Why waste millions of lives for a relatively small economic win?

[Cryddit]

How long should the US have this defense pact with Japan?  and if Japan causes the war with China why should the US side with Japan?  I am sick of the US trying to get involved in other nations' issues when we are arguing over islands with no clear answer.  Yes it's over islands but it's for economic reasons.  Why waste millions of lives for a relatively small economic win?

The US and Japan have history that makes that really awkward.  

The Armistice they hammered out at the end of WWII deprived Japan of the right to have an Army or Navy.  In return, the US offered to 'protect' the Japanese from outside aggressors.  Now, in fact the US hammered this so-called agreement down Japan's unwilling throat at the end of the war as effective terms of surrender, but it hasn't really been a bad agreement for either side -- so far.

That armistice is, AFAIK, still in effect.  The JDF is not an 'Army' in the technical sense, and can't be construed as one by International Law because, for as long as the Armistice has been in effect, it hasn't taken military action on soil controlled by another government. And for all that a lot of their "merchant marine" is heavily armed and owned by the government, they aren't a 'Navy' by the same token -- they have never taken overt hostile action against ships which are part of the armed forces of another nation, nor targeted land-based installations or forces on the sovereign territory of another government.

So, if China attacks Japan, the US would be forced to either take sides with Japan, or withdraw from the Armistice.  Neither of which they want to do, because they don't want to be in a war with China and they don't want to lose face in the International community by refusing to honor the terms of their Armistice, and they don't really want Japan released from a broken Armistice and free to officially rearm.

On the other hand, if the Japanese attack China, they'd be sacrificing their US protection (whatever that's worth with China) because that would make their forces into an Army/Navy, which would violate the Armistice at no cost to the US.  It would even leave the US free to come in on the side of China if they wanted to (or if the Chinese made it worth their time) after being 'betrayed' by the Japanese.

[deisik]

Yes, you are right about the names, but the truth is still by my side. The possession of these otherwise worthless islands allows Russia to get full control over that part of the sea (the Sea of Okhotsk to be precise)...

Sea of Okhostsk - Yes.

La Pérouse Strait - No.

Big difference. The ocean boundaries between Japan and Russia are undisputed and well defined up to the North of the Shiretoko peninsula. Only the marine region to the East of the Shiretoko peninsula is disputed.

So, these islands aren't actually as worthless as they might look at first glance. Also, rhenium (one of the rarest elements in Earth's crust, used for making jet engine parts) was discovered in 1994 at Iturup island...

[bryant.coleman]

How long should the US have this defense pact with Japan?  and if Japan causes the war with China why should the US side with Japan?  I am sick of the US trying to get involved in other nations' issues when we are arguing over islands with no clear answer.  Yes it's over islands but it's for economic reasons.  Why waste millions of lives for a relatively small economic win?

If Japan bullies Russia, US should not interfere.

But right now, that is not the case.

Let's look back to history:

1961: China invades Aksai Chin (until then administered by India) without any provocation. It is still under Chinese occupation

1965: China invades Dong-Yin (part of Taiwan). Status quo.

1967: China invades Sikkim (part of India). Indians expel PLA soldiers.

1969: China invades Damansky Island (part of USSR). The Soviet Red Army beat the living daylights out of PLA.

1974: China invades Paracel Islands (until then administered by Vietnam) without any provocation. It is still under Chinese occupation

1987: China invades Sumdorong Chu Valley (part of India). Status quo.

1988: China invades Johnson South Reef (part of Vietnam).  It is still under Chinese occupation

Now they want to invade Shenkaku Islands (Japan) and Scarborough Shoal (Philippines).

Tell me who are the bullies here. 

[Kiki112]

How long should the US have this defense pact with Japan?  and if Japan causes the war with China why should the US side with Japan?  I am sick of the US trying to get involved in other nations' issues when we are arguing over islands with no clear answer.  Yes it's over islands but it's for economic reasons.  Why waste millions of lives for a relatively small economic win?

If Japan bullies Russia, US should not interfere.

But right now, that is not the case.

Let's look back to history:

1961: China invades Aksai Chin (until then administered by India) without any provocation. It is still under Chinese occupation

1965: China invades Dong-Yin (part of Taiwan). Status quo.

1967: China invades Sikkim (part of India). Indians expel PLA soldiers.

1969: China invades Damansky Island (part of USSR). The Soviet Red Army beat the living daylights out of PLA.

1974: China invades Paracel Islands (until then administered by Vietnam) without any provocation. It is still under Chinese occupation

1987: China invades Sumdorong Chu Valley (part of India). Status quo.

1988: China invades Johnson South Reef (part of Vietnam).  It is still under Chinese occupation

Now they want to invade Shenkaku Islands (Japan) and Scarborough Shoal (Philippines).

Tell me who are the bullies here. 

this is kind of mindblown but I don't think China is going to be  able to succeed in such act once more as Japan is not India and we should also think about the influence of western countries  here
I don't think such a  war will happen, China is probably testing out Japan to see if  they could do this but as  we  saw Japan reacted  well and  a  war will most probably not happen

[bryant.coleman]

I don't think such a  war will happen, China is probably testing out Japan to see if  they could do this but as  we  saw Japan reacted  well and  a  war will most probably not happen

Nothing can be taken for granted. The Japanese military depends a lot on their American counterparts. Also, Japan is currently suffering from massive depopulation.

[jones31]

I don't think such a  war will happen, China is probably testing out Japan to see if  they could do this but as  we  saw Japan reacted  well and  a  war will most probably not happen

Nothing can be taken for granted. The Japanese military depends a lot on their American counterparts. Also, Japan is currently suffering from massive depopulation.

Honestly , I see that depopulation problem at no problem at all. In the upcoming years I think that we will have more and more countries thinking about population control.
It does not sound too good but it's something we have to face.
You don't need too many people in your country nowadays , workforce starts to get replaced by machines and even if there is a temporary need you don't really have a clue about what will be in 20 years when the newborns will be apt for work.

[bryant.coleman]

Honestly , I see that depopulation problem at no problem at all. In the upcoming years I think that we will have more and more countries thinking about population control.
It does not sound too good but it's something we have to face.
You don't need too many people in your country nowadays , workforce starts to get replaced by machines and even if there is a temporary need you don't really have a clue about what will be in 20 years when the newborns will be apt for work.

Depopulation is not a problem when it is uniform all over the world. Sadly, it is not the case. So we have South Korea on one side, where the women give birth to an average of 1.05 children in her lifetime, and Niger on the other side, where the same is 7.50.

International borders are getting more and more obsolete nowadays, and nothing can prevent the movement of people from overpopulated nations to the sparsely populated ones. In long term, that means the breakdown of cultural norms, and in the end it will result in the collapse of the nation as a whole.

In future, somewhere near 50% of the Japanese population will be elderly, and the economy won't be able to grow without significant immigration. 

[jones31]

Honestly , I see that depopulation problem at no problem at all. In the upcoming years I think that we will have more and more countries thinking about population control.
It does not sound too good but it's something we have to face.
You don't need too many people in your country nowadays , workforce starts to get replaced by machines and even if there is a temporary need you don't really have a clue about what will be in 20 years when the newborns will be apt for work.

Depopulation is not a problem when it is uniform all over the world. Sadly, it is not the case. So we have South Korea on one side, where the women give birth to an average of 1.05 children in her lifetime, and Niger on the other side, where the same is 7.50.

International borders are getting more and more obsolete nowadays, and nothing can prevent the movement of people from overpopulated nations to the sparsely populated ones. In long term, that means the breakdown of cultural norms, and in the end it will result in the collapse of the nation as a whole.

In future, somewhere near 50% of the Japanese population will be elderly, and the economy won't be able to grow without significant immigration. 

Japan has an advantage there.
It's not that easy to get into and it's not so easy to get accustomed to their society.
They do have come up with 10, 20 and even 50 years plans , so I would guess they have a plan for this also.

[Honeypot]

Fuck china. They actin' like biyatches, yo.








That being said, they do have far more nuclear warheads than 200 - tunnels under taibai and networks of such underground storage is estimated to hide at least 2000-4000 nuclear warheads and possibly missiles.

If they do go to war, here's to hoping they permanently remove each other off the face of the earth and survivors migrate to africa or something.

Honestly , I see that depopulation problem at no problem at all. In the upcoming years I think that we will have more and more countries thinking about population control.
It does not sound too good but it's something we have to face.
You don't need too many people in your country nowadays , workforce starts to get replaced by machines and even if there is a temporary need you don't really have a clue about what will be in 20 years when the newborns will be apt for work.

Depopulation is not a problem when it is uniform all over the world. Sadly, it is not the case. So we have South Korea on one side, where the women give birth to an average of 1.05 children in her lifetime, and Niger on the other side, where the same is 7.50.

International borders are getting more and more obsolete nowadays, and nothing can prevent the movement of people from overpopulated nations to the sparsely populated ones. In long term, that means the breakdown of cultural norms, and in the end it will result in the collapse of the nation as a whole.

In future, somewhere near 50% of the Japanese population will be elderly, and the economy won't be able to grow without significant immigration. 

For western nations, I am seeing a trend that is decidedly against immigration. Within the next decade or two, immigration will be severely curtailed, and many so-called 'immigrants' who have absolutely no reason to respect the nation of their residence will face a choice: Be removed by force, or leave of their own free will.

This is simply a balancing act against the irresponsible nature of immigration policies in those nations. No nation has any obligation to accept someone in just because they ask. In fact, such attitude warrants a foot on their throats. Each nation has their own legacies and roots that must be respected and obliged. If these immigrants cannot take it upon themselves to take this matter seriously, they are merely criminals and must be removed or killed with extreme prejudice.

This applies to all nations. Nigeria. India. Iran. Russia. China. Egypt. And all the nations of the West. No one is obligated to let someone it when they do not wish to do so.

[bryant.coleman]

For western nations, I am seeing a trend that is decidedly against immigration. Within the next decade or two, immigration will be severely curtailed, and many so-called 'immigrants' who have absolutely no reason to respect the nation of their residence will face a choice: Be removed by force, or leave of their own free will.

I don't think so. On the other hand, I see the migration policies getting more and more liberalized.

The EU has almost finalized its plans to import 50 million African workers:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/65628/Secret-plot-to-let-50million-African-workers-into-EU

The US on the other-hand, is going to legalize some 20 million+ illegal immigrants.

The only nation which has so far violently reacted to illegal immigration (Russia) has significantly eased its policy since 2010.