Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 China has suffered in the past; China requires these resources; China is everyone's big brother in the region; therefore everyone needs to go back to the old way of doing things where everyone kowtows to China. Just because they were down and out for a century doesn't mean anything has changed. That's China's viewpoint, for what it's worth.
Posted by gromky 2012-08-09 00:37||
I think direct American intervention should be highly conditional and require regional players to pony up significant forces and/or money. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and Japan covered the entire cost of Desert Storm. Much like Desert Storm, any American intervention in SCS should be predicated on the strong-arming of all interested parties for either money or significant military participation. Otherwise...
I understand that a lot of people think our participation in WWI and WWII, where we lost 500,000 men, only to be jeered by the Brits for being "late" to the festivities, set the pattern for posterity regarding an aggressive American posture towards big wars far from our shores. It has to be said however, that our 19th century forebears seem not to have been particularly concerned that they missed out on the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War or any of the other big wars fought in Europe during that era.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-08-09 10:53||
#3 Why doesn't China build nuke reactors and get themselves off of oil and the logistical nightmare that dependency requires. They could proclaim how advanced/clean they are to the world. It's not like environmentalists are gonna say squat to the PRC.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-08-09 14:41||
#4 "Need" doesn't have anything to do with it. "Deserve" is more like it.
China operates on a scarcity mindset. There's not enough to go around, is the cultural thinking. Everything is a zero-sum game. In order for us to win, others must lose. This is why China makes so many seemingly self-destructive moves. From their point of view, it's the right thing to do.
Posted by gromky 2012-08-09 14:52||
#5 I don't think anything as rational as scarcity is driving Chinese moves. It's the cult of "we are the greatest and we will bend the world to our will". It's the one religious aspect of a basically irreligious society (even before communism).
Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-08-09 15:15||
#6 Yeah, what Zhang Fei said. The name 'China' means Middle Kingdom - between Heaven and Earth. The rest of you can all go *bleep* yourselves. Divine right, destiny and all that nonsense.
As someone (P2K?) mentioned in another thread, this all bears a disturbing resemblance to the Japan's militaristic expansion that lead to a big-ass war in the Pacific.
Posted by SteveS 2012-08-09 15:33||
#7 Even if need is out of the equation agression with a risky oil logistical problem is foolish and solved with a bit of will and cash.
Posted by Rjschwarz 2012-08-09 16:49||