Special Report: China's military hawks take the offensive

Comments (36)
Free_Pacific wrote:

Hitler thought no one would help Poland either. Look how that turned out. So what if China can defeat little Philippines or Vietnam in a small sort war, it is what will follow that will echo through Chinbese hitory books for thousands of years after. The book about how an aggressive, arrogant, mongrel state started a world war and was disected into tiny pieces so it never happened again. Think long and hard fools, the writing is on the wall.

Jan 16, 2013 7:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WJL wrote:

Ren Haiquan was merely stating the facts. Japan should stop its nonsense in trying to annex the islands.

Jan 16, 2013 7:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PPlainTTruth wrote:

Reuters’s distortion of demonstration for peace into the exact opposite
is getting more and more egregious.

Hundreds of millions of victims of Nazis scream from their graves against Reuters!

A book will document all the distortion of facts by Reuters & Nazi-whitewasher @afr one day.

Reuters will be shamed, very very shamed.

Jan 16, 2013 7:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jo5319 wrote:

Reuters is passing Fox news as the Faux news channel.
For one thing, it’s more dangerous because Reuters’s techniques are more sophisticated, meticulously planned.

May God protect our poor little world from Reuter’s and its Nazi-whitewashers’ distortion of news, of history, of evidence, of facts. Amen.

Jan 16, 2013 7:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
reality-again wrote:

A fool in uniform is still a fool

Jan 16, 2013 7:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Reuters has gone mad to cover up Japanese Nazi resurgence, by distorting Abe’s war mongering trip as economic.

And peaceful holocaust victims’ protest is distorted as hawks!

Reuters has lost all credibility.

Jan 16, 2013 7:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WwokenUup wrote:

How much did Japan pay to bribe Reuters?

Jan 16, 2013 7:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
antipodes wrote:

China is testing the reactions and resolve of surrounding countries by its military provocations and extreme speeches by military officers.To date, Japan and the United States have responded in a firm but quiet manner. This is good. We want neither weakness nor overreacting.

Jan 16, 2013 10:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Andao wrote:

“We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel.”

Peaceful China. No wonder these three are running towards the US as fast as they can. What a stupid waste.

China could buy off the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam and just shut up about the military stuff, and they’d have what they want with ease. Instead they sound like they’re just itching to start World War 3, and for what cause?

Jan 16, 2013 10:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Andao wrote:

“Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea…”

Do you really want to take that risk?

Jan 16, 2013 10:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lpc1998 wrote:

@Free_Pacific Jan 16, 2013 7:31pm EST

“So what if China can defeat little Philippines or Vietnam in a small sort war, it is what will follow that will echo through Chinbese hitory books for thousands of years after. The book about how an aggressive, arrogant, mongrel state started a world war and was disected into tiny pieces so it never happened again. Think long and hard fools, the writing is on the wall.”

What could follow could be the end of the world as we know today. The world would enter a long period of nuclear winter, 85% of the Asia’s great rivers, world’s oceans and massive regions of the world in both east and west could be high radioactive; and space debris would ensure no satellite communication for thousands of years. . People like Huge White understand this, not people like you who think you could still read history books.

The Chinese will fight for their homeland just as anybody else would. They had done so in Korea (fighting there was to prevent fighting in China). The PRC government has already given up huge regions of Chinese territories. Under the Constitution of the Republic of China (another name for China) under the Taipei Government, part of China’s territories are shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.svg

Jan 16, 2013 11:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mgunn wrote:

For us Americans and our media and politicians, etc. to view and label and project some strident statements at their speaking engagements really takes away and defocuses our own super lethal strident rhetoric which led up to the unnecessary, illegal, and truly murderous invasion of Iraq, killing 600,000+ people who had nothing to do with 9/11 and causing chaos and sectarian violence that led to more than a million deaths. And all this in contrast to a country (china) which hasn’t been involved in a war in over 30 years.

Jan 17, 2013 2:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
gee.la wrote:

Don’t worry too much. No one, not a single one has the courage or any courage, even though it is a mindless courage. Everyone is a coward, no matter how much ‘hawkishness’ to show up.

Jan 17, 2013 2:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
ncshu2 wrote:

There is no such “military hawk” in China daring stepping out of the communist party line. Mao once famously said “Out of the gun barrel, stems out our government.” Putting the military under the absolute control of the communist party is still an axiom of the communist rule in China. The action of the “military hawk” in the article is actually out of deliberate decision from the government. The purpose of it is to divert the gross dissatisfaction of the people from against the government to against foreign nations. Nationalism has always been a useful tool for the communist rule. However under the circumstance of gruesome inequality and abuse of power, and rampant official corruption, this tool of nationalism may backfire this time as the strained foreign relation has already had a negative impact on the economic prosperity of the country, which has been flaunted as the main legitimacy of the Chinese government after China was open up to outside world in late 1970s.

Jan 17, 2013 2:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jocomus wrote:

If those islands did belong to Japan, she needs not pay billions to buy them and from who ? This is a sale of stolen property and invalid by common sense. China’s patrolling own waters shouldn’t be viewed as an offensive but unfortunately interpreted so. If Japanese right-wing activists scorn at Chinese military as talk tough but act soft, they may find themselves too late to regret.

Jan 17, 2013 4:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Free_Pacific wrote:

lpc 1998 wrote “…not people like you who think you could still read history books.”

At least it is not a fabricated revisionist history. China is famed for it’s revision. Did you know, that China has revised it’s history with so much confusion, it has become more and more unclear. Never mind, the ambiguity is then used to claim areas of ocean under the pretense ‘This might be the island, we srent sure now becasue of our revision, but it suits in multiple cases, so we will roll with it”.

So, if China starts a war and loses, they will nuke everyone? Well thats big of you my nationalistic friend. China may fight for it’s land, but lets face it, most of it is not their land to start with. Do tibetans self immolate becasue they love the ice cream and candy?

All that is needed, is to smash the Chinese Navy if it tries anything stupid…. they lose everything, are choked off and will HAVE to negotiate. Period. We have had peace on a large scale in the asia-pacific, aside from the cold war rivalry of the US and hte USSR and the insurgencies sponsored all over by China. It is China that wants to change this status quo, not anyone else, the rest of us were happy to carry on carrying on. There is only ONE protagonist.

Jan 17, 2013 7:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rhino1 wrote:

Unbelievable!

After 2 world wars and uncountable smaller wars, some still going on and causing unimaginable pain, someone seems to ask for another big one.

There are still people (testosterone-driven, no doubt) who think a war can be won by anyone. 20,000 years of evolution and what did we learn?

The Chinese have good arguments and so have the Japanese. The Chinese don’t seem to be able to compromise, nor are the Japanese. Both countries are run by men. Well, they don’t bear the children and still don’t seem to be able to empathize with all the sons and daughters who will have to die or be raped.
Both countries and their governments don’t seem to have any sense of responsibility for their citizens, the people they represent and whose interests they should have in mind.
Who are the morons who wrote all these articles above? You remind me of the goons in black vans who would have beaten us up in Tokyo when we were demonstating against nuclear power. Only, going by your strong words, you are Chinese. Same, same.

Chinese and Japanese, you might not like what I say, but you are more alike than you think.
For the sake of women and children, and considering that the Japanese living in Japan now are not the same ones that invaded your country, China, grow up and use diplomacy.
For the sake of women and children and as a gesture of good will, since you don’t seem to be able to apologize for your misdeeds 70 years ago, Japan, grow up and use diplomacy.

As Gandhi said: An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.

Jan 17, 2013 8:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

The Filipino’s and Vietnamese are more than capable of exacting a huge cost from China should they exercise the military option. The worst thing any military leader can do is underestimate the capacity and capability of their enemy–regardless of their level of sophistication.

China has not fought a war in over 60 years (and that was a civil war)–so their military, and especially their leadership, is not tested. This is a closed society, so they have limited exposure to reality–except what they read on the internet or what information they are able to glean via espionage. They would spend the first two years of any engagement trying to figure out and respond to “what happened?”. And, they have no (as in “zero”) practical experience in managing the logistics of war.

Military engagement is a two-way street–those attacked have as much say in the outcome as the attacker. They need to be careful, as any use of force has a cost much higher than what their “war games” might indicate. War is fluid–it never follows any pre-defined path.

Jan 17, 2013 10:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
FatherJames wrote:

…My God… nobody ever learns anything… This kind of saber rattling… (“…any conflict would be short and sharp…”) preceeded WWI…

…The Japanese still refuse to admit to their own people just how bad their atrocities were throughout Asia… They still downplay the Rape of Nanking… which was so horrible that even German Nazis on the spot were shocked…

…Meanwhile, the Chinese have gone from a massive inferiority complex to a titanic superiority complex… almost back to the days when there was the Chinese empire… and barbarians… The Chinese show “maps” to their school children showing “historical China” and “greater China…” The former includes free countries in Asia and the latter includes Australia… Not saying that the Chinese government actually planning to act on that… but it does not auger well for the future…

Jan 17, 2013 1:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KyleDexter wrote:

@Free_Pacific and all you American Imperialists, if we ever had a war, we would lose and go bankrupt. All they have to do is stop buying our debt and dump all of those worthless Treasury securities they own,and thats it…..

You people tend to forget that fire power costs BIG MONEY, money we do not have, and they have in abundance. They will suffer a deep recession, but we will go bankrupt!!!

Jan 17, 2013 2:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

China is the real paper tiger. All show, no go. It is known fact that China only has the supplies to maintain its military in a war for two weeks, and most of their weapons are obsolete (although they do have some modern weapons). The reason China has never attacked Taiwan is that in all computer simulations, Taiwan repelled the attack with huge losses to China. China only has the capability to reach Japan with 80,000 troops, but they would never get there because the Japanese defense force would sink the ships and shoot down the planes before they reached Japan.
In computer simulations, the US defeats China in three days.
China is not a threat, China is mostly peaceful, but of course just like the US, China has its war monger blood loving generals.
I am not worried about China and this fear mongering so the Wall Street tycoons can make money on defense spending means nothing to me.

Jan 17, 2013 2:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lpc1998 wrote:

@Free_Pacific Jan 17, 2013 7:46am EST

You sound so naïve. History is the story according to the one who writes it.

So silly. How are you going to smash up the Chinese Navy? The US Pacific Fleet? Have you been following the Pentagon’s concerns about the Chinese military? Not the Chinese navy, but the Chinese missiles, especially the ones referred as the “carrier-killers”. What is to be done if one or more US air-carriers are seriously damaged or sunk by the Chinese missiles? AirSea Battle? The PLA Second Artillery operates both the nuclear and conventional missile forces. How is the Pentagon going attacked the conventional missiles without attacking the nuclear ones? Anyway, any attack on the Chinese Mainland would invite PLA retaliation on the US mainland. So the US unleashes 5,000 nuclear warheads on China? What if Chinese retaliation devastates half of the US mainland and space assets? Or 20 major cities? Or just the effects of the 5,000 nuclear warheads exploding in China on the global environment? If you have no idea, just look at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Chairman Mao had said many years ago that nuclear weapons are paper tigers.

You seem to think WWIII would be fought like in WWII and you have overlooked that the Euro-Asia-Africa continent is land linked and how a massive nuclear strike against China affects China’s neighbours, especially Russia and India. We are all on one planet; we either swim together or sink together.

Jan 17, 2013 10:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stevengb wrote:

If China thinks it can have a war with Japan and not end up getting their teeth kicked in by the United States…they are in for a very nasty disappointment at the hands of the US 7th Fleet! The idea of attacking Japan is extremely foolish! the Chinese might as well attack Seattle -the results will be the same, we will destroy them.

Jan 18, 2013 1:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
jasonsaopaulo wrote:

i am surprised you reported this as a “belligerent” statement. it was a frank reminder of a historical fact. Darwin indeed was bombed by japanese… but most significantly, japan’s invasion of china, korea and SE asia. until today, except for the minority left wing party, majority of japanese and politicians refused to apologize for the war. millions of japanese school children still visit Yasukuni Shrine in the middle of their capital, tokyo.. which glorifies japan’s war time behavior. imagine we erect a shrine with multiple statues to glorify slavery at Washington Mall and children visit the shrine to learn about the “good” of slavery.

Jan 18, 2013 3:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jasonsaopaulo wrote:

not many american tourist visit Yasukuni Shrine in the middle of tokyo, capital area. the Shrine is visited by many school children on education trip. the moment you enter the Shrine you see statues, historical artifacts memorialized the brevity of the imperial army in second world war, especially in the chinese theatre. you also see the war criminal adjudicated by the world court buried and memorialized, the single judge who ruled japan as “not guilty” is also memorialized (but not the other judges who convicted japan). there is not a single item showing the atrocity of war caused by japan. the new prime minister, after assuming office, just visited the Shrine to pay homage to the second world war deaths.

on this MLK Day. imagine we build a memorial on Washington Mall, commemorating the “good” of slavery and have little kids visiting.

Jan 18, 2013 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Zephon wrote:

China is hardly afraid of Japan and the USA as well as the lessor states in the region that want to claim Chinese territory.

And the USA military officers that have studied this like myself understand we cannot win a war in China’s back yard and we do not want to defend Japan over a few rocks that rightfully belong to China.

Time for Japan to get down and negotiate a way out of this incident they started by ignoring previous agreements (buying the islands and nationalizing them) with China to shelve the issue for “wiser” diplomats when they agreed to open up to one another at the end of the last century.

Jan 18, 2013 3:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nqk826 wrote:

In recent years, the Chinese have been doing really well. So, it created a strong nationalism (arrogant in my sense) sentiment in China right now. In my opinion, all this sentiment could really bite them in the a$$. China is not on good term with many nations. China will be alone if it start a war.

Jan 18, 2013 4:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse

At last! China’s not stating the historical and legal facts in the past has allowed others to slowly distort the facts and allowed others to paint a bad image about China. This is a typical old-fashioned Chinese character magnified to the national level. I am glad that is now changing.

Although the West never said it yet, this is their thought in their mind: Those islands were given back to China when the country was ruled by a party called KMT. When KMT was cornered to the island province and the rest of China was ruled by CCP, the West saw an opportunity to create a tension between the KMT and CCP by letting its ally–a country that they defeated in WW2–to get involved.

Of course this is everybody’s understanding: Going to war with China on these so-called disputed territories will cause a deeper schism between Chinese and the West.

Jan 18, 2013 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
beancube2101 wrote:

Real Asian fighters are quiet and cool minded. They can sense and verify where are real dead ends and where are the spots on top of most of the manageable situations. Come and go are not merely expressions, they are are actions without notices.

Jan 19, 2013 9:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
trabrook wrote:

I really don’t have a dog in this fight. China has been far less belligerent than the United States over the years, and heaven knows there is enough xenophobia in the American media to suit the most jingoistic tastes. That being said, there is the striking fact that there is a SEVERE dearth of women in China. That is the essential biological, not political, imperative that cannot be simply ignored by a prudent observer. If I were one of China’s neighbors, I would keep one eye on the sky and the other on the sea.

Jan 19, 2013 9:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
MarkDonners wrote:

The real battle is for the world environment, the basis of life on earth. And both China and Japan along with a few other environmental renegades are going full speed trying to destroy it. The environment isn’t built to withstand idiot humans assault on the air and water, and China thinks it’s some kind of hero for building a filthy coal plant every week and destroying the world environment and wildlife for greed. Japan too, with its greed corporations and pretending its still at war with the world murdering our whales in sanctuaries. Both Japan and China have elected far right sabre rattlers to their governments. Let them kill each other off, it will save the future of our world and all life on it.

Jan 19, 2013 1:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mrjoeped wrote:

We’ll all be waiting for that blockbuster tell-all Plain Truth. Can’t wait.

Jan 19, 2013 5:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
leedsburg wrote:

“In recent years, the Chinese have been doing really well. So, it created a strong nationalism (arrogant in my sense) sentiment in China right now. In my opinion, all this sentiment could really bite them in the a$$. China is not on good term with many nations. China will be alone if it start a war.”

What are you? Live under a rock? What is Russia? What is NK? What is Pakistan? Even S. Korea doesn’t like Japan. etc. etc. etc. Japan is the bad guy here and so is USA. Get a clue!!!

Jan 19, 2013 8:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Confucius’ Analects has one very popular saying “Shi Ke Ren, Shu Bu Ke Ren”. It mirrors the Western’s “slippery slope” concept. But there is a huge difference.

“slippery slope”: If I allow you to behave that way, you will definitely behave even more worst than what I originally allowed.

“Shi Ke Ren, Shu Bu Ke Ren”: If I tolerate this particular bad behavior of yours, then I might as well tolerate all of your bad behaviors.

Many concepts between the East and the West may appear to be quite similar at first glance, but the differences are huge.

“Ren”, simply translated as “endurance”, is a very traditional Chinese character that is deeply ingrained into the Chinese psyche. Many Chinese have stories to tell about their initial interactions with Westerners. Their “ren” did not solve problems that they encountered in the West; they hoped in vain that other people could see the beauty of “ren” and would stop the problems. But that hope often failed. (If you are Taiwanese, you known “Shan Mao” the female writer in the 70′s. In one of her early books she tells a story of her initial experiences in Spain and how she eventually abandoned “ren” and successfully solved the problems she encountered.)

It is often said: Chinese culture tends toward the “feminine” side and the West’s the “masculine” side.

The “feminine” action: I will endure what you have done thus far because I want you to accept my “ren” not as a sign of weakness but as a way to avoid conflict.

The “masculine” action: I will give you a fair amount of repeated warning to stop that bad action of yours and hope that you will pay attention to my warning. If you fail in your responsibility to pay attention to my warning and instead you brush my repeated warning aside with impunity, I will have no other choice but to punish you. (Although it pains me that I should take my dutiful action to punish you, just so you know.)

Jan 20, 2013 11:26am EST  --  Report as abuse

From individuals to the national levels, Chinese’s history of practicing the philosophy of “ren” (“endurance”) is littered with far more failures than successes in problem solving.

There has been very little (if any) scholastic discussions of the good and bad of “ren”. Instead, people came up with all kinds of excuses to explain why “ren” did not work.

* I did not want to fight for better work place or higher wage because I am fortunate to even have a job.
* We were poor back then.
* Back then we were backward in technology.
* We were not highly educated back then.
* We let the future generations to solve the problems because they should have the necessary wisdom by then.
* Etc.

But time marches on. It does not favor one group over the other. Society can grow older or younger, increase or decrease in population, grow poorer or richer, get mired in natural disasters, etc. Time also alters our perception of events, brings up newer definitions of things, slowly chips away our feelings, etc.

I am not here to slap the wisdom of Mr. Deng. I am pointing out the lack of scholastic analysis of the fallacy of “ren”.

Jan 20, 2013 1:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Free_Pacific wrote:

@lpc1998

You say I may be naive, but then give some tirade on exaclty how modern warfare will play out. You use a crytal ball for that?

You keep missing the point here. No one will fire a shot at China. It will be Chinese aggression that starts anything. None of us in the pacific have any interest in warfare, but that does not mean we will roll over when someone tries to steal our lunch money.

Naive indeed. Keep thinking like the PLA and see how far it gets you… such an expert!

Jan 22, 2013 8:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.