Discussion War Between China and Japan?

[kkck]

If it was to happen, it would most likely be caused by the desire for economic dominance and blind nationalism. Wars are rarely started for reasons that seem sane from the outside.

China fears the hegemonic power of the US and by extension Japan. Obama has been announcing for years he intends to do an "Asian pivot" economically. China, as the second largest economy in the world, is worried that this "pivot" means taking over its territory, which it most certainly does. A war would be disastrous for all parties involved specifically the US, Japan, and China and whatever poor countries get used as a battleground.

It does, however, seem unlikely (granted everything usually does until it happens). But with the continual pushes in both Chinese and especially Japanese culture towards right-wing nationalism, it's far from a non-issue. The large number of Chinese and Japanese citizens that seem to expect a conflict of some sort is the worrying thing. It's easiest for a government to start a war if the people expect it.

Well, yeah, but with such vague objectives I doubt even china's worst blind nationalism could justify a war. Its not like they are fighting over oil or mines or something tangible, such a scenario suggest fighting someone because they are economically superior. And sure, a war would destroy the US economy however it would do so at the expense of their own. Isn't the US china's biggest trade partner? I am not sure of how the pivot could mean taking over territory. Maybe I am missing some information or context but doesn't that imply actually invading somewhere? China and the US are definitely not going to war, they are too deep into the whole " commerce" thing for such a thing to make sense. Even a war with Japan is extremely unlikely if it might hamper its economic interest elsewhere. China may have an authoritarian government and all but their economy is too capitalist to justify a war over something that does not yield actual, tangible returns. In china the whole extreme nationalism is not for the government but for the people.

 

[Drmke]

What you say is true only under the assumption that all states will function as rational actors which they rarely do in real life. And the economic objectives of America and China are "vague" only in the sense that they don't come right out and say what they intend to do because there would always be major backlash from local populations. But when I say "taking over territory" I am referring to economic domination. That's how modern imperialism works. You force another country's economy to be so tied up with yours that they cannot safely risk resisting any demands you and your business interests make. It also helps to place military bases in said country which the US has done. The US maintains a fairly aggressive military presence in Asia. Not aggressive in the sense that it attacks but in the sense that every country in the East knows it is capable of it. These two factors are what would worry China or any other economy that wishes to remain as free as possible from America's influence.

And the "too capitalist for war" argument does not hold up historically. Both World Wars were fought between Capitalist countries (Soviet exception). Capitalist economies must inherently expand to keep up profit increase. A century ago, there was really only one dominate capitalist force: the Us and Europe (excluding the capitalist tendencies of the USSR before and after Stalin). Now, there are two rival capitalist factions: the US, Europe, and NATO in one group and the BRICs countries in the other. China and the US enjoy a very lucrative partnership but one that has always been tense and only one bad incident from war. They are our biggest economic rival and will be for decades to come. I'm not sure what you think most wars are fought over, but I can confidently say that it is usually profit.

Once again, war seems unlikely simply because their hasn't been one on this scale in a long time. If current tensions, history, and foreign meddling (US) are brought into the mix, it becomes far more difficult I believe to simply brush off the concerns (especially with the polls mentioned in the article). And if we throw in political and social unrest both countries are increasingly experiencing, the whole situation becomes even harder to predict. It's hard to believe that the US will simply sit by and watch as it loses it's unprecedented economic hegemony or that China would be content with second place.

 

[kkck]

What you say is true only under the assumption that all states will function as rational actors which they rarely do in real life. And the economic objectives of America and China are "vague" only in the sense that they don't come right out and say what they intend to do because there would always be major backlash from local populations. But when I say "taking over territory" I am referring to economic domination. That's how modern imperialism works. You force another country's economy to be so tied up with yours that they cannot safely risk resisting any demands you and your business interests make. It also helps to place military bases in said country which the US has done. The US maintains a fairly aggressive military presence in Asia. Not aggressive in the sense that it attacks but in the sense that every country in the East knows it is capable of it. These two factors are what would worry China or any other economy that wishes to remain as free as possible from America's influence.

And the "too capitalist for war" argument does not hold up historically. Both World Wars were fought between Capitalist countries (Soviet exception). Capitalist economies must inherently expand to keep up profit increase. A century ago, there was really only one dominate capitalist force: the Us and Europe (excluding the capitalist tendencies of the USSR before and after Stalin). Now, there are two rival capitalist factions: the US, Europe, and NATO in one group and the BRICs countries in the other. China and the US enjoy a very lucrative partnership but one that has always been tense and only one bad incident from war. They are our biggest economic rival and will be for decades to come. I'm not sure what you think most wars are fought over, but I can confidently say that it is usually profit.

Once again, war seems unlikely simply because their hasn't been one on this scale in a long time. If current tensions, history, and foreign meddling (US) are brought into the mix, it becomes far more difficult I believe to simply brush off the concerns (especially with the polls mentioned in the article). And if we throw in political and social unrest both countries are increasingly experiencing, the whole situation becomes even harder to predict. It's hard to believe that the US will simply sit by and watch as it loses it's unprecedented economic hegemony or that China would be content with second place.

Of course wars are fought over profit, that is precisely my point. There is no profit to be made in this hypothetical war for any of the involved parties. There is a reason there haven't been large scale wars in a long time, all major powers are trade partners. A war in response to the tensions over there won't actually solve their problems, if anything it would do the exact same opposite to the utmost extreme. Sure, people aren't always rational but this is something that all plausible parties know about. They can't not realize it. What you are suggesting is basically a huge tantrum over whose gdp and trade is larger. An actual war would imply that at least one side somehow rationalized (or irrationalized I guess) that going to war over the size of their economies or their influence is justifiable even though said war would almost certainly destroy their economies or influence. Just an announcement of this nature would simply break financial markets worldwide, within a few days of it both sides are probably going to be too poor to even be able to go to war. The US can't do without the stuff it buys and sells to china china can't do without the stuff is buys and sells to the US. It basically a fight over their penis size except that the end result invariably destroys all penises involved.

 

[Hll]

I am sorry to barge on this thread, I am an Indian and frankly I would like to know what exactly is this entire conflict with China and Japan, since it seems more likely for a war between India and China to break out, or maybe any other South-East Asian country on the main continent, due to various problems related to resources and China becoming a major player when comes to this region.

At least for India I can attest to this, the Brahmaputra, the Northeast Asian States in my country and even Ladakh, are all territorial disputes that are frankly even more hostile than our disputes with Pakistan and China has also tried to muscle its way in to South Asian politics by aiding our neighbours like Pakistan and Sri Lanka in this war.

Plus there is also a chance of a war breaking out in Tibet with the local Tibetans wanting their country back.

 

[Drmke]

I am sorry to barge on this thread, I am an Indian and frankly I would like to know what exactly is this entire conflict with China and Japan, since it seems more likely for a war between India and China to break out, or maybe any other South-East Asian country on the main continent, due to various problems related to resources and China becoming a major player when comes to this region.

At least for India I can attest to this, the Brahmaputra, the Northeast Asian States in my country and even Ladakh, are all territorial disputes that are frankly even more hostile than our disputes with Pakistan and China has also tried to muscle its way in to South Asian politics by aiding our neighbours like Pakistan and Sri Lanka in this war.

Plus there is also a chance of a war breaking out in Tibet with the local Tibetans wanting their country back.

Barge away; this thread was basically dead anyway.

The China/Japan conflict appears, from an outsider perspective, to be territorial and power related. Both countries desire to control the waters between each other and that involves taking control of various small island groupings. China sees Japan as a US wedge into controlling the Asian region (US President Obama's "Asia Pivot" as he called it) and rightfully so honestly. and Japan sees China attempting to assert it's influence over all of Asia including Japan and it's partners.

Plus, the countries have a brutal history together. And with the Japanese government's recent push to militarize, China is placed more on edge.

I wouldn't be surprised to see India and China have at least some form of skirmish with each other. This is especially true if we consider the Indian government's recent right-wing shift and the new economic deals with the US. Clearly, the Indian government has made it known which of the two biggest powers in Asia (China and the US oddly enough) it wishes to ally with. Having the power of India allied with the US at China's border will surely make the CCP at least nervous (economically for sure).

A full-scale war, however, seems less likely, but I'm not as familiar with the Chinese-Indian relationship/history.