Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Should Japan return the Diaoyu Islands to China?

POST REPLY

Should Japan return the Diaoyu Islands to China?

Yes
15
83%
No
3
17%
 
Total votes : 18
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 25 Sep 2012, 20:53
Of course you can't be a real superpower without a powerful military. For example China has started building aircraft carriers, which Khruschov called the instruments of imperialist aggression.
It is obvious that China is rapidly investing in its military power-projection capabilities in order to protect and enforce its interests in her "neighbourhood" and further on.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 Sep 2012, 21:55
The USSR invested in its submarines rather than in aircraft carriers. Russian submariners can still stand 6 months under the sea.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3828
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 25 Sep 2012, 22:37
And the modified Varyag that China has as an aircraft carrier, is pretty light. It's basically a cruiser that carries some planes. Not remotly comparable to the american carriers.
It's mostly to defend the China sea, with all the problems they have there, rather than to project power.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5148
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 25 Sep 2012, 22:52
Che Burashka wrote:
It's mostly to defend the China sea, with all the problems they have there, rather than to project power.


America used to be like that. We had a large navy that couldn't possibly match britain's but worked well securing our immediate influence, but was still formidable and able to grow into a superpower's navy.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 25 Sep 2012, 23:14
Quote:
And the modified Varyag that China has as an aircraft carrier, is pretty light. It's basically a cruiser that carries some planes.

That's why the Soviets classified it as a “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser" - тяжелый авианесущий крейсер.

Quote:
Not remotly comparable to the american carriers.
It's mostly to defend the China sea, with all the problems they have there, rather than to project power.

Of course the Varyag was bought for training and research-development purposes, to help with indigenous designs.
But China is already building two new carriers.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3828
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 25 Sep 2012, 23:29
Conscript wrote:
America used to be like that. We had a large navy that couldn't possibly match britain's but worked well securing our immediate influence, but was still formidable and able to grow into a superpower's navy.


So? China should just let Japan and the USA control the China sea, because otherwise in 20, 50 or 100 years China might become imperialist?
Sometimes it seems people just want China to be as bas as the USA or the UK...


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 26 Sep 2012, 00:30
Also, the fact that you have the force to "project power" doesn't mean that you will do it. The possibility to attack is also part of deterrence, just as preemptive strikes are part of war strategy.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Sep 2012, 12:11
But isn't that the whole point of carrier fleets? With carriers you can bully small nations into submision without even firing a gun. The Chinese carriers are most likely not being made to counter the American ones, but first of all to help guard China's interests and project power in her neighbourhood and perhaps beyond it.
China, just by having these two carriers, is already projecting power.

Quote:
Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory. This ability is a crucial element of a state's power in international relations. Any state able to direct its military forces outside the limited bounds of its territory might be said to have some level of power projection capability, but the term itself is used most frequently in reference to militaries with a worldwide reach (or at least significantly broader than a state's immediate area). Even states with sizable hard power assets (such as a large standing army) may only be able to exert limited regional influence so long as they lack the means of effectively projecting their power on a global scale. Generally, only a select few states are able to overcome the logistical difficulties inherent in the deployment and direction of a modern, mechanized military force.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3828
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 26 Sep 2012, 14:45
They might use it to project their power, they might not. They're getting the hardware to do so if they choose to do it, but then it's a political decision.
The USSR had many ways to project their power, yet many agree they weren't imperialists.

And carriers not always can bully a small nation. When we held the Summit of the Americas in 2005, Bush came to Mar del Plata in an aircraft carrier. Still, Kirchner, Lula and Chavez told Bush we were burying the FTAA for good. Threats are only as good as your will to fulfil them.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 26 Sep 2012, 15:52
Quote:
They might use it to project their power, they might not.

And that is already an "argument" against Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippnes and so on.

Quote:
And carriers not always can bully a small nation. When we held the Summit of the Americas in 2005, Bush came to Mar del Plata in an aircraft carrier. Still, Kirchner, Lula and Chavez told Bush we were burying the FTAA for good. Threats are only as good as your will to fulfil them.

Well Serbia didn't back down in 1999 until half of its infrastructure got bombed.
Point is, carriers are weapons of power projection and with carriers China has leverage over its neighbours.
Besides, China has already proven that it is more than willing to fulfill her threats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_So ... f_Skirmish
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 30 Sep 2012, 09:56
What evidence is there that China has no interest in projecting force abroad? At the very least in Asia?

Quote:
China Planning Military Base In Pakistan Indian Report Says

China is planning a military base in Pakistan, India Today reported, citing "a secret report prepared by the government's joint intelligence committee."

China is planning a military base in Pakistan, India Today reported, citing "a secret report prepared by the government's joint intelligence committee."

According to the report:

China is keen to build military bases in FATA, or the Northern areas, while Pakistan wants to counterbalance Indian naval forces by having a naval base in Gwadar. But it does not spell out the exact location of these bases.

At a time when Pakistan-US relations are strained — chiefly over drone missile attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas and the covert Navy SEAL operation attack that took out Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil — China has made no secret of its interest in strengthening its own ties with the nuclear-armed nation.

Last Thursday, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao hosted Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in Beijing and vowed to support closer military exchanges between the countries.

“China and Pakistan pledged to strengthen military ties and bring existing cooperation to a new level," Xinhua quoted China's Defense Minister Gen. Liang Guanglie as saying.

“China values its traditional friendship with Pakistan,” Liang reportedly said, adding that Beijing hopes to develop “pragmatic and effective cooperation with Pakistan in national defense arena."

The Associated Press of Pakistan quoted Kayani as echoing Liang's comments, saying that Pakistan "would continue to provide firm support to China on all issues concerning its core interests," without specifying those interests.

Kayani said, however, that the relationship had been strengthened by frequent high-level visits, joint exercises and enhanced technological cooperation.

India Today, meantime, wrote that:

China's deepening strategic penetration of Pakistan and joint plans to set up oil pipelines/ rail/ roads and naval and military bases are a matter of concern.

The paper acknowledged that: "China's desire for a military presence in Pakistan has been discussed by the political and military leadership of that country in recent months."

It noted that the issue of Chinese bases in Pakistan was discussed during the visits of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to China and during a visit late last year of the ISI chief, Shuja Pasha, to Beijing.


Source: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/war/military/120109/musharraf-china-military-pakistan-bases-wen-jibao

So where is the evidence that China is not seeking to expand its strategic position? Maybe this is only a defensive measure to secure their position.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 Sep 2012, 10:39
China has already a base in Pakistan and next to Inda. These bases are useful to resupply their ship going through Suez, and to protect them from piracy which is very active on the eastern African coast. India is a danger for China. In 2020, they plan to have 4 aircraft carriers.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 30 Sep 2012, 12:02
Political Interest wrote:
What evidence is there that China has no interest in projecting force abroad? At the very least in Asia?


The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim. The correct question to ask is, what evidence is there to show China has any interest in projecting force abroad? The correct answer is quite little - only what is necessary to defend itself from U.S./Japanese and Indian imperialism and to deal with any future conflict with Taiwan.

Power projection capabilities do not equate to imperialism. It's as simple as that. If it did, The USSR and even Cuba before the end of the cold war would have been imperialist, which is obviously not true to everybody except the most crazy Maoists and Hoxhaists out there. The Trotskyist page Loz linked to is very wide of the mark. Anyone who's spent any amount of time researching the Chinese military and speculations on future trends knows that China's main and most immediate goal is to develop area denial capabilities. In other words, China wishes to have the ability to prevent an aggressor from projecting its' military assets within reach of striking China or any area it wishes to defend, such as holding Taiwan in the event of a war with the U.S. for example. The power projection capabilities being developed are an extension of this overall defensive philosophy. As OP correctly said, the Chinese have an interest in protecting shipping lanes which bring vital imports into China. The development of an aircraft carrier is really only a message to the world intended to say "China is an advanced nation capable of defending itself. Don't mess with us".

All imperialist nations have power projection capabilities to some degree, but it is a fallacy to say all nations with power projection capabilities are imperialist.

Che wrote:
Sometimes it seems people just want China to be as bas as the USA or the UK...


Yep. China's development doesn't fit into a classical Marxist analysis. Certain people can't seem to understand that when a model no longer fits with observations of reality, the model needs to be adapted or replaced with one which is consistent with observation. They desperately try to explain reality in a way which fits in with their model instead of the other way around. It's like how creationists try to explain scientific evidence in a way which supports their religious ideology instead of accepting that the evidence better supports a theory of evolution based on natural selection with the Earth being billions on years old. It's completely the wrong way to go about it.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 30 Sep 2012, 17:47
Quote:
The correct answer is quite little - only what is necessary to defend itself from U.S./Japanese and Indian imperialism and to deal with any future conflict with Taiwan.

It's really funny how you claim that China isn't an imperialist country and then bring up the dreaded Indian imperialism.


Quote:
Yep. China's development doesn't fit into a classical Marxist analysis. Certain people can't seem to understand that when a model no longer fits with observations of reality...

Oh boy, looks like we got a serious new theoretical development right there!
Now would you kindly explain to us, for start, what exactly is this "model of a classical Marxist analysis" (?) you talk about and secondly, how and in what way does China's development not fit into it.

Quote:
...the model needs to be adapted or replaced with one which is consistent with observation

What model? Since when do Marxists speak of some "models" of analyses?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 01 Oct 2012, 01:31
Loz wrote:
It's really funny how you claim that China isn't an imperialist country and then bring up the dreaded Indian imperialism.


India is presently a client of U.S./Western imperialism. But if you want to talk about a nation which has a real chance of becoming imperialist in its own right, India is it.

Scientists talk about models. Last time I checked, Marxism considers itself a scientific ideology.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 01 Oct 2012, 03:07
Quote:
But if you want to talk about a nation which has a real chance of becoming imperialist in its own right, India is it.

Why, and why does China not "have a real chance of becoming imperialist in its own right" ?

Quote:
Scientists talk about models. Last time I checked, Marxism considers itself a scientific ideology.

I've never heard anyone talk about "Marxist models" of this and that, i've heard of for example the Marxist method and so on. Maybe i just misunderstood you or maybe i'm not informed enough.

Anyway, answer the main point, how and in what way does China's development not fit into this "classical model of Marxist analyses" you speak of?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron