16-May-14 World View -- China blames U.S. as anti-China violence grows in Vietnam
Palestinian commemorate founding of Israel as 'Nakba Day'
** 16-May-14 World View -- China blames U.S. as anti-China violence grows in Vietnam
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e140516
Contents:
China blames U.S. as anti-China violence grows in Vietnam
U.S. asks Vietnam to permit additional Navy ship visits
Japan moves toward reinterpreting its pacifist constitution
Palestinian commemorate founding of Israel as 'Nakba Day'
Lebanon accused of discriminating against Palestinians from Syria
Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Martin Dempsey, China, Fang Fenghui,
People's Liberation Army, PLA, Vietnam, Seventh Fleet,
Japan, Shinzo Abe, Collective self-defense,
Israel, Palestine, the Nakba, Lebanon, Syria
16-May-14 World View -- China blames U.S. over Vietnam
-
NoOneImportant
Re: 16-May-14 World View -- China blames U.S. over Vietnam
Individual action in the South China Sea in response to China's aggression only assures individual defeats, and thus individual victims. From earliest recorded history the weak have used unity (alliances) to thwart the strong. Those in the South China Sea will either unify, or be defeated one after the other.
There are two common methods to thwart a strong adversary: 1.) Alliances to make you stronger; or 2.) present jeopardy to the home of the adversary. The history of alliances is long and almost continuous - culminating in WW-I, WW-II, and the western, and eastern Cold War alliances undermined by Obama for the last five years. Two notable examples of presenting jeopardy to the home of an adversary to thwart that adversary are: 1.) Carthage in the last Roman Punic War; and 2.) the American Vietnam war. These two examples are different in that the Roman conflict was conventional, as we see it, and resulted in the removal of Hannibal from Italy, and the final utter destruction of Carthage. While, on the other hand, the jeopardy presented to America by the Vietnam War was internal, and only delayed, never resolved.
Early in WW-II Churchill tasked MI-6 with studying how many dedicated opponents were required to undermine, and disable a "modern" industrial society. The result was: if appropriately trained, financed, and armed a surprisingly small number of people. The result of the study gave rise to the British organization of the various "resistance" groups throughout Nazi occupied Europe. While the resistance did not stop dedicated aggression it did substantially up the cost in terms of money, and manpower (troops). To that end to illustrate the importance of "internal tranquility" to the Chinese, China spends as much on internal security as it does on defense - it is a significant concern for China. To lever this no declaration of war, or hostile military action is necessary for operations to commence, thus actions just start to happen in the targeted "home-land", starting with the attack on hard assets, and difficult to protect infrastructure. There is risk, for without sufficient plausible deny-ability, and perhaps even with plausible deny-ability reciprocal action may be expected - but then again, the only other obvious path leads to the chaos of open conflict, with the almost certain military defeat of China's opponents.
Those two options are the most obvious two options open those in the South China Sea. Ferment and fund large scale internal descent within China proper - to give the Chinese something other than the South China Sea to think about. Or, perhaps too late, establish a functional regional effective military alliance to confront China. And perhaps the first may not effectively be done without the coordinated action of the other. The first order of business is to understand that China's (and Russia's too for that matter) represent not individual disputes, but rather a consciously decided upon pattern of naked aggression, an aggression relying upon the smallness of its scale to prevent open armed response - conflict.
What makes this so interesting is that GD predicts that without the disappearing generational memory, neither of these actions will take place; as a new generational catastrophe is necessary to establish a "new" generational memory (fear) in the minds of the generational survivors - my interpretation.
There are two common methods to thwart a strong adversary: 1.) Alliances to make you stronger; or 2.) present jeopardy to the home of the adversary. The history of alliances is long and almost continuous - culminating in WW-I, WW-II, and the western, and eastern Cold War alliances undermined by Obama for the last five years. Two notable examples of presenting jeopardy to the home of an adversary to thwart that adversary are: 1.) Carthage in the last Roman Punic War; and 2.) the American Vietnam war. These two examples are different in that the Roman conflict was conventional, as we see it, and resulted in the removal of Hannibal from Italy, and the final utter destruction of Carthage. While, on the other hand, the jeopardy presented to America by the Vietnam War was internal, and only delayed, never resolved.
Early in WW-II Churchill tasked MI-6 with studying how many dedicated opponents were required to undermine, and disable a "modern" industrial society. The result was: if appropriately trained, financed, and armed a surprisingly small number of people. The result of the study gave rise to the British organization of the various "resistance" groups throughout Nazi occupied Europe. While the resistance did not stop dedicated aggression it did substantially up the cost in terms of money, and manpower (troops). To that end to illustrate the importance of "internal tranquility" to the Chinese, China spends as much on internal security as it does on defense - it is a significant concern for China. To lever this no declaration of war, or hostile military action is necessary for operations to commence, thus actions just start to happen in the targeted "home-land", starting with the attack on hard assets, and difficult to protect infrastructure. There is risk, for without sufficient plausible deny-ability, and perhaps even with plausible deny-ability reciprocal action may be expected - but then again, the only other obvious path leads to the chaos of open conflict, with the almost certain military defeat of China's opponents.
Those two options are the most obvious two options open those in the South China Sea. Ferment and fund large scale internal descent within China proper - to give the Chinese something other than the South China Sea to think about. Or, perhaps too late, establish a functional regional effective military alliance to confront China. And perhaps the first may not effectively be done without the coordinated action of the other. The first order of business is to understand that China's (and Russia's too for that matter) represent not individual disputes, but rather a consciously decided upon pattern of naked aggression, an aggression relying upon the smallness of its scale to prevent open armed response - conflict.
What makes this so interesting is that GD predicts that without the disappearing generational memory, neither of these actions will take place; as a new generational catastrophe is necessary to establish a "new" generational memory (fear) in the minds of the generational survivors - my interpretation.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests