22-Dec-13 WV-China denounces Japan's military plans

[John]

22-Dec-13 World View -- China denounces Japan's planned military expansion


North Korea threatens South with 'merciless attack' via fax machine

** 22-Dec-13 World View -- China denounces Japan's planned military expansion
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e131222



Contents:
China denounces Japan's planned military expansion
Another anti-polio worker shot in Pakistan
North Korea threatens South with 'merciless attack' via fax machine


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, China, Japan, proactive pacifism,
Yasukuni Shrine, Ghalib Khan, Pakistan, Taliban, polio,
North Korea, South Korea, Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il,
Jang Song-thaek

[Reality Check]

I wonder if this is what it felt like before World War II.

The players are different of course.

The Philippines or Vietnam may play the role of Poland, and Japan perhaps France.

Or maybe Japan is Poland and the United States France.

One could see when threatened with "a nuclear winter that no one could win" Obama would abandon Hawaii and other Pacific Island territories, plus the Panama Canal to China, and withdraw all surviving U.S. military forces out of the Pacific Theater leaving the U.S. west coast as a hostage guaranteeing U.S. neutrality.

As preposterous as this sounds, France surrendered in World War II to Germany with the vast majority of the French Army intact.

The French Army was the largest Army in the world at the start of World War II and considered one of the most well equipped with artillery and infantry weapons. France also had one of the largest Naval Fleets in the World. Most of the French Army sat on the border of Germany at the time of surrender with no significant German forces between that border and the German industrial heartland.

The bulk of the German army was far behind French lines, near Paris and other Northern French cities, with tanks and troop transports, but no fuel supplies that would allow those tanks and troops to withdraw and defend Germany.

The French just decided not to trade the destruction of French cities for the destruction of German cities.

One could only guess what would happen in Western Europe and the Middle East if the U.S. was no longer willing to risk anything to defend U.S. allies.

[John]

> I wonder if this is what it felt like before World War II.

> The players are different of course.

> The Philippines or Vietnam may play the role of Poland, and Japan
> perhaps France.

> Or maybe Japan is Poland and the United States France.

> One could see when threatened with "a nuclear winter that no one
> could win" Obama would abandon Hawaii and other Pacific Island
> territories, plus the Panama Canal to China, and withdraw all
> surviving U.S. military forces out of the Pacific Theater leaving
> the U.S. west coast as a hostage guaranteeing U.S. neutrality.

> As preposterous as this sounds, France surrendered in World War II
> to Germany with the vast majority of the French Army intact.

> The French Army was the largest Army in the world at the start of
> World War II and considered one of the most well equipped with
> artillery and infantry weapons. France also had one of the
> largest Naval Fleets in the World. Most of the French Army sat on
> the border of Germany at the time of surrender with no significant
> German forces between that border and the German industrial
> heartland.

> The bulk of the German army was far behind French lines, near
> Paris and other Northern French cities, with tanks and troop
> transports, but no fuel supplies that would allow those tanks and
> troops to withdraw and defend Germany.

> The French just decided not to trade the destruction of French
> cities for the destruction of German cities.

> One could only guess what would happen in Western Europe and the
> Middle East if the U.S. was no longer willing to risk anything to
> defend U.S. allies.

The situation with France in WW II is a fascinating one. France had
fought the bloody Battle of Verdun and Battle of the Somme, resulting
in tens of millions of deaths. It was horrific. And then what
happened? First the Americans came over. Next, the Germans
surrendered, not because they were defeated on the battlefield, but
because of internal political squabbles in Berlin's government during
their Unraveling era. And after the French fought all those bloody
battles, who got all the credit for winning? The Americans.

So in 1940, there were still memories of the 1871 Paris Commune, where
tens of thousands of Parisians rose up and killed each other in a
battle that was historically viewed as insane. And everyone
remembered WW I, where there were tens of millions of deaths with,
once again, an insane result. So in 1940, the mood was, "Hey, here we
go again. Let the British fight this one. Let the Americans fight
this one. We're going to sit this one out, because to do anything
else is insane."

It's like the situation in South Sudan that I wrote about a couple of
days ago, where thousands of people are fleeing to U.N. compounds
because they expect a repeat of the Bor Massacre of 1991.

There is a parallel between France in 1940 and the U.S. today. For
France it was the Battle of the Somme, for America today it was
Vietnam. Obama and Kerry have abandoned the post-WW II view of
America as policemen of the world, and consider any American
participation in any war anywhere to be insane, and not worth
fighting. The phrase "leading from behind," which originated from the
Obama administration, captures this idea that it's insane for the
U.S. to get into any war -- just let the Europeans fight it out if
they want. "Leading from behind" may even be the correct description
of the mood of the French people in 1940. However, that attitude was
universal in 1940 France, and is by no means universal in today's
America.

[Reality Check]

The situation with France in WW II is a fascinating one. France had
fought the bloody Battle of Verdun and Battle of the Somme, resulting
in tens of millions of deaths.

The entire World Wide death toll from World War I, military and civilian alike, is generally considered to be less than 20 Million.

France lost less than 1.5 Million people in World War I. ( Over 3% of Frances total population )

But your point is well taken, the U.S. lost less than 200 Thousand in World War I.

The difference today is President Obama's world view of nuclear weapons.

Many politicians today actually believe the world would end in a nuclear winter if there was an all out nuclear exchange.
Obama's deep faith in this world view is demonstrated by his Arms Control policies where he believes a few hundred Nukes have as much deterrent power as a few thousand.

China does not share this self delusion.

I can see a scenario where China uses a small number of nuclear weapons against the U.S. Pacific fleet, Japan and Vietnam and Obama opts for a negotiated withdrawal rather than "destroying the world".

[John]

> I can see a scenario where China uses a small number of nuclear
> weapons against the U.S. Pacific fleet, Japan and Vietnam and
> Obama opts for a negotiated withdrawal rather than "destroying the
> world".

This won't happen:

1. When China decides to attack, they'll do so to achieve maximum
surprise and with maximum force. So they'll launch hundreds or
thousands of missiles at American cities, military installations, and
aircraft carriers.

2. Any attack on the U.S., especially a nuclear attack, will be a
"regeneracy event" that will unify the nation and cause a maximum
response.

[Reality Check]

1. When China decides to attack, they'll do so to achieve maximum
surprise and with maximum force. So they'll launch hundreds or
thousands of missiles at American cities, military installations, and
aircraft carriers.

The best result China could hope for right now with such a strategy would be to survive the immediate retaliatory attack but without any large Chinese cities and without any Chinese nuclear deterrent.

Then Russia would almost certainly finish what the U.S. counter strike did not destroy. China's surviving military and government assets would be attacked by Russian strategic forces repeatedly until none of China's military or government assets survived.

Russia might allow the U.S. to surrender after destroying any nuclear weapons capability the United States had left.

China, with it's massive population and long land border with Russia would not fair so well. The means of feeding that huge population would be destroyed by Russian strategic forces and then disease and starvation would be allowed to solve the population problem.

Such a surprise nuclear attack by China would give Russia the excuse to finish D

[John]

> "If the Americans are determined to interfere [with Taiwan then]
> we will be determined to respond. We ... will prepare ourselves
> for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course
> the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ... of cities
> will be destroyed by the Chinese."

** China and Japan head for military confrontation over disputed islands.
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e050716

> "The moment that Taiwan declares independence, supported by
> whomever, China will have no choice but to [use] whatever means
> available to my government. Nobody should have any illusions on
> that. ...

> It's not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one INCH of
> the territory is more valuable than the LIVES of our people."

> [With regard to the U.S.'s constant criticism of China's rapid
> militarization:] It's better for the U.S. to shut up, keep quiet.
> That's much, much better. China's population is 6 times or 5
> times the United States. Why blame China? No. forget it. It's
> high time to shut up. It's a nation's sovereign right to do what
> is good for them. But don't tell us what's good for China. Thank
> you very much."

** Furious Chinese ambassador harshly threatens U.S. over Taiwan
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e060818

[Trevor]

There is a parallel between France in 1940 and the U.S. today. For
France it was the Battle of the Somme, for America today it was
Vietnam. Obama and Kerry have abandoned the post-WW II view of
America as policemen of the world, and consider any American
participation in any war anywhere to be insane, and not worth
fighting. The phrase "leading from behind," which originated from the
Obama administration, captures this idea that it's insane for the
U.S. to get into any war -- just let the Europeans fight it out if
they want. "Leading from behind" may even be the correct description
of the mood of the French people in 1940. However, that attitude was
universal in 1940 France, and is by no means universal in today's
America.

That attitude may not be universal, but it's certainly common. It might be easy for some to blame this on Obama and Kerry, but it's the attitude of most people at the moment. Nobody wants another war, and would be perfectly happy to withdraw and leave the world to its own devices. When the prospect of another Sino-Japanese war is discussed, it's usually: "If they want to fight themselves, let them. It's none of our business."

It's the one thing both sides agree on: no more wars. Also like France, we're doing very little to prepare for the conflict, something I'm quite positive we're going to regret when hostilities break out.

[Guest]

In the past wars were often about winning in order to enhance your nations economy or military position. Somehow, hopefully, the war would improve the situation in your country. Today wars are still being fought over resources; however, now countries fight not to enhance their economies, but to maintain the status quo (if even that). Resource depletion is driving nations to desperation. Peace just doesn't seem like much of an option anymore. Who is willing to share anything when everything is becoming so scarce?

[JULLIEN1]

Reality check wrote

The entire death toll from World War I, military and civilian alike, is generally considered to be less than 20 Million.

France lost less than 1.5 Million people in World War I. ( Over 3% of Frances total population )

But your point is well taken, the U.S. lost less than 200 Thousand in World War I.

Well, that's bloody : it was 10% of the French male adult population. Add the 600,000 permanently maimed, the tens of thousands of gazed and you have the description of a Pyhrric victory.
Vietnam war is supposed to have killed around 58,000 U.S soldiers: that's less than one per cent of the American population or, as some books claimed, less than road accidents in the same time.

The most interesting from the point of view of the Generational dynamics theory is how French remember their history. WW2 which killed "only" 650,000 French (twice the death toll for the U.S) is more remembered, more present in the political speeches, more present as a cultural reference than WW1. WW1 was bloodier but a Generational awakening "high": after decades of patriotic and republican education French united in theUnion sacrée to defend the motherland and the democratic ideals of the Third French Republic against the German invader. The bloody and muddy result provoked a backlash ("Unraveling" in Generational dynamics) with pacifism and doubts about the Republic, either left-wing with communism or right-wing with fascism. French fascists had their chance with the Vichy regime but it was a case not of "leading from behind" but of "staying behind" what looked like the probable winner (Nazi Germany). It's remembered as one of or the most shameful moment of French history. Nowadays all political movements explain who they are by comparing themselves with WW2 (real or fantasied) predecessors, a lot of things are justified as being necessary for avoiding a remake of WW2 (for example the Euro).
It's very interesting because it shows very well a basis of the Generational dynamics theory : people always react in the same manner when an Unraveling having followed its course ends in a logical and unavoidable disaster, the death toll NOT mattering. Always they tell to themselves in the aftermath "Now we have to do things differently"... and in fact just restart a new one.