- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1223 Hour
- Reading permission
DOES CHINA WANT TO FIGHT A TACTICAL WAR AT SEA GIVEN HER TACTICAL DISADVANTAGES, OR WOULD CHINA WISH INSTEAD TO FIGHT A STRATEGIC WAR IN WHICH SHE IS ASSURED AT MINIMUM OF PARITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF "MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION"?|
In the last analysis, China's defense of her sovereign territory will have to backed by her nuclear forces. And in the last analysis, China's policy of "No First Use" of her nuclear weapons will have to be pre-empted by any defense of her territory that requires more than a token tactical force to achieve.
This is like the use of a gun. If only a few fellows in town possess a gun, it would be good policy for everyone to adopt a NO FIRST USE, unless someone is using it already. But, if, taking advantage of this peaceful policy, a local thief uses a knife to rob and kill, backed by another fellow with a big shotgun behind him. What are the rest to do? NO FIRST USE, until after they are stabbed, until after they have lost an arm or leg to the Japanese katana? China can hear Japan sharpening its samurai sword loud and clear lasting up to nearly two weeks at a time.
Would it not be appropriate to prevent a greater war to first warn Japan that any military action against Chinese citizens on Diaoyudao will be considered an attack on all of China and will be defended by EVERY means at China's military disposal without exception?
Japan thinks it will be able to drag China into a purely conventional war over Diaoyudao and thereby reduce the size of the Chinese navy substantially over just a small island group, leaving the rest of Chinese maritime territory indefensible, at which time, the Vietnamese and Philippine forces can do the mopping up operation. This is their BEST scenario. But what if China sees the ruse and threatens to go ALL OUT ON DIAOYU DAO?
It might sound like an empty threat, but if forced to choose between losing Diaoyudao and having its navy largely decimated, or winning Diaoyudao and keeping its navy relatively intact, China may not find it hard to throw in the kitchen sink.
At that point, Japan will be faced with backing off Diaoyudao and using this defeat as a reason to demand the scrapping of its peace constitution, the arming of Japan with nuclear weapons, the restoration of the Meiji imperial militarist government, with the view to eventually pushing the US out of Japan when Japan is a nuclear power. And this might not be unacceptable to Uncle Sam, except that it might be unacceptable to China, as Japan had already mass murdered some 35 million of its people from 1937 to 1945. This rearming of Japan on the pretext of its loss of Diaoyudao, a part of China to begin with, does not stand up to reason. How can a thug imply he needs a bazooka simply because he could not rob his neighbor of his backyard? But the logic of brigandism would approve of such a move. In which case, China might have to intervene on the basis of the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945 that any move of Japan back to its military government would automatically trigger the final phase of WWII, which would then lead obviously to WWIII. The Neo-Nazi's probably have bunkers to keep their "elite race" away from harm, so the sooner the world ends for them, the sooner they can emerge as the new masters of the planet. Thus, this is not unthinkable. It is not even improbable. It is the default course of events as when Hitler tore up the Treaty of Versailles and went on the path of militarization, but who knew then, it would lead to another world war? Churchill said, and Ambassador Liu Xiaoming pointed out in his FT article, "attitude makes a big difference." In the case of WWII, it did. And if the world looks askance at Japan's attempt to remilitarize as harmless, it will again.