A Korea Herald article examines the U.S., Japan, and Australian triangular alliance that is taking shape in East Asia. It also examines S. Korea’s fears that it is getting sidelined in the alliance.
Mainly due to its strategic rifts with Seoul, Washington would have decided to further intensify its alliance with Tokyo to make Japan its number one partner in the Northeast Asian region. The United States has already made a beginning move into a Washington-Tokyo-Canberra triangular alliance for security in the West Pacific, excluding South Korea,” said Kim Jong-ha, a defense strategy professor at Hannam University.
We can thank Pres. Roh and his ridiculous “balancer” strategy for that. Not that S. Korea isn’t trying
Currently, South Korea is looking to enhance its stake in East Asian littoral security.
South Korea’s plan to build a blue-water (deep sea) navy is part of its efforts to play a role in the littoral region. To extend the radius of its operations, the South Korean Navy is planning to build a strategic mobile fleet, and construct a naval base on the southern island of Jeju.
I do believe that it is in Korea’s best interest to have a strong blue water navy. But I don’t think a strategic mobile fleet and a base in Jeju is it. It looks more like the ROKN is trying to imitate the JMSDF instead of building a viable fleet structure that suits its needs.
Of course, there are differences between Japan, Korea, and the U.S. that might hamper Korea’s efforts to join the triangle
But most experts rebutted the idea as unfeasible, citing strained relations between South Korea and Japan.
Differing views on China will also impede the triangular military ties, experts said. The United States and Japan are wary of the rise of China, but South Korea can’t help but to at least partly accept China’s emergence due to its geographic location and China’s influence on North Korea, they said.
The Seoul government was concerned about the South Korea-U.S. alliance’s subordination to the U.S.-Japan alliance. It also refused to accept the U.S. strategy to contain China.
But in the end, South Korea needs to improve security ties with the U.S. while putting aside differences with Japan.
Cha Du-hyeon of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses also agreed that Seoul should quickly fasten ties with Washington, ahead of future dismantlement of the UNC.
He also stressed that Seoul and Tokyo need to appropriately coordinate their bilateral security cooperation.
When the day that China flexes its muscle comes, there is no way S. Korea can handle the issue on its own, despite Pres. Roh’s “balancer” proclaimation. Which means it is in S. Korea’s best interest to be a team player within the East Asian alliance.
60 Comments
Looks like the writer finally got a chance to slip in that Dictionary.com word of the day for September 15, 2002. Like many obscure words that appear in the English-language press, “littoral” doesn’t quite seem to fit. One does not need a deep sea navy to protect coastal waters.
Less than four months until the election. It will be interesting to see in the next administration can undo the damage of the last two.
Richardson,
For the sake of all ROK citizens, we can only hope. Roh has caused great damage to the security of South Korea by pushing away its strongest and most willing partner.
When will the left get it through their thicks heads ?
The U.S. is not South Korea’s #1 enemy. Japan is no longer South Korea’s #1 enemy. China will likely soon be Korea’s #1 enemy when it comes time to re-claim North Korea.
As a die-hard (American) lefty, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but, I’m looking forward to a natural adjustment of the Korean politic to the right, closer to sanity and security. Less rhetoric and more reality.
Then again, Korean left != American left, so I can still be a proud American lefty
#1 Sonagi; “Littoral” is now a buzzword in the defense community for smaller but technologically capable ships that can operate along the coast line and in rivers to provide support in farther inland as in LCS or “Littoral Combat Ship”.
They are to target the middle ground between the blue water and brown water navies.
The US had plans for four but has cut at least one already. If you do a search you’ll find tons of info on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship
In this case I agree with you, they used the word incorrectly. I alway throught littoral meant “of rivers and lakes” but its being used for coastlines as well. Regardless it’s certainly not meant for the high seas as this article uses it.
I disagree with the notion I hear often that “Korea is copying Japan’s naval capabilities”. I would like to hear details of why you think this is so.
Japan’s navy focuses on self defense, while South Korea is working towards a (buzzword alert) “strategically mobile force”, the plans for which was shemed up by Kim Dae Jung.
http://www3.yonsei.ac.kr:8888/.....amp;page=1
This focused on three individually deployable modern fleets each with approximately the same numbers of KDX Is, IIs and IIIs with an LDX at the center housing amphibious landing craft and support helicopters.
LDX -> LPX
The JMSDF during the Cold War was focused on hunting and destroying Soviet submarines. With the end of the Cold War, the JMSDF although not totally moving away from the ASW mission because of China, is also focusing more on BMD and international humanitarian missions.
As for the ROKN, well, I don’t know what their focus is, because other than implicit references of “deterring against neighbors”, it has never clearly stated what it intends to do with the ships that it is ordering.
Anyways, here is why I think that the ROKN is copying the JMSDF. First of all let’s look at the typical structure of a JMSDF escort fleet and the so called strategic mobile fleet (SMF).
JMSDF : 1 DDH, 6 DDs, 2 DDGs (Aegis)
ROKN SMF : 1 LPX, 4 KD-2 DDGs, 2 KD-3 DDGs (Aegis)
As you can see the structure of the two fleets are very similar. And this on top of the fact that unlike the JMSDF escort fleets, the ROKN SMF has no clear mission. So no clear mission but a fleet structure that is very similar to the JMSDF’s fleet structure?
The similarities can be seen in the two nation’s shipbuilding programs;
Osumi/Hyuga Class -> ROKS Dokdo
Atago/Kongo Class -> ROKS King Sejong (KD-3)
Takanami Class DDs -> KD-2 class DDGs
2,900 ton submarines -> 3,000 ton submarine
Mashu Class AOE -> 15,000 ton AOE
First of all, if one was to look at the ROKN’s road map during the late 90s, most if not all of the ROK ships listed above did not exist on paper. But come the 21st century, all of a sudden they have blossomed out of nowhere. It look like as if someone sat down opened a copy of Jane’s Fighting Ships to the page regarding Japan and said “OK let’s build this, this, and that”
And the funny thing is, if you try to compare the Korean naval buildup with the Chinese naval buildup, you will have a hard time matching the two countries’ ships as I’ve done above.
Okay so this could be all coincidence, but IMO, it’s too close to be just dismissed as coincidence.
The goal of these forces is to be able to deploy on UN missions, (as they have been doing quite frequently since 2000) and gain Korea some much desired andneede international standing. In a military sense, Japan has a hard time doing this century.
And the obvious common influence would be the United States, but unfortunatley I must get back to work… Your post warrants a longer response from me, I’ll try to write more later…
Since the late 1990s, witht he exception of sending a LST to transport equipment to East Timor, another LST to support OEF, and a KD-1 destroyer to escort cargo ships carrying heavy equipment for the Zaytun unit, the ROKN has never deployed overseas on an operational mission. So I don’t think one can label the above as frequent UN deployments.
Mins0306:
So because Korea is building ships and submarines, it’s copying Japan’s self defense structure?
Good to know that you have your critical thinking cap on.
Japan is not Korea’s enemy… for now. However, Japan’s right wing seems to think that it’s only a matter of time before it has to fight against China. Do remember that, historically, whenever Japan has decided to fight China, it has gone through Korea first.
The best way to prevent Japan from attacking Korea is not to forgive them, but rather to deter them. Japanese incursions into Korea cannot be prevented by forgetting history, joining hands and singing kumbaya. The best way to maintain peace between Japan and Korea is to build a strong deterrent against one side attacking the other. This is just common sense.
As far as matching capability is concerned, I’ll just say that I’m glad you don’t have a career in national defense. Who has the strongest navy in the region? Russia? Japan? China? Japan has the strongest navy and will not permit itself to be overtaken by China. If Korea is to maintain parity with anyone in the region, it makes sense to keep an eye on the country with the strongest navy. Again, this is just common sense.
P.S. Actually, the United States has the strongest navy in the region, but a defense minister who says, let’s guard against an invasion of South Korea by the United States would be laughed out of the room.
It’s obvious that you didn’t read my comments very carefully. I’m not saying that Korea is just building ships and submarines, but the SAME TYPE of submarine and ships as the Japanese. Now there’s nothing wrong with Korea building ships and submarines, but shouldn’t it build ships and subs that are more suited to its needs, rather than simply copying Japan?
Have you ever been to this site? http://bemil.chosun.com.
The reason, I’m asking you this is because you sound exactly like the members of that particular site who spend all day calling for war with Japan, or building 20 KDX-3 destroyers, etc.
What you say is not common sense, but a bizzare form of nationalism. Common sense dictates that Korea form an alliance and cooperate with the U.S., Japan, Australia, and even India for that matter to ensure the security of NE Asia.
Of course, that goes both ways.
The two attempted invations of China from Japan have been through Korea. The one attempted invation of Japan from China by the Yuan (Mongol-Chinese) Dynasty was also by way of Korea.
Mins0306:
I read your post. Your theory is nonsense. Korea is building Aegis ships because Aegis ships are the ships best suited for defense, not because Japan has them. Besides, Aegis ships are not designed by the Japanese; they are designed by the United States.
Also, mins, I’ve never even heard of the bemil.chosun forum before. Stop trying to insinuate a connection that isn’t there. I never once in my post called for war with Japan. In fact, I argued the exact opposite. I claimed that the best way to prevent war with Japan is to have a strong deterrent against possible Japanese attack.
“The security of East Asia” is just a codeword for containment of China. Mins0306, you’ve been hanging out with these fools for too long. You don’t get it: Korea has no interest in behaving belligerently towards China.
1. Japan fears China because it feels that its “leadership” of Asia is threatened by China. Japan also fears China because it knows that China will never forgive or forget the attrocities Japan committed during WWII.
2. The United States fears China because it too wants to maintain world supremacy. The U.S. is probably also afraid that a rising China threatens the supremacy of Western culture.
Korea has no interest in these little ego battles. If the U.S. wants to fight China to boost its ego, let it go ahead. If Japan is feeling the pinch of a deflated ego, let it too pick a fight with China. If Korea fights China, let it be for a good reason, not because Tokyo and Washington want to inflate their egos.
Not so fast, Mins. Now, I’m not saying that Korea should leave itself defenseless against China. Of course, China should enter the strategic calculus of Korea’s defense ministry. But you have to use common sense here. On one side you have a country that is talking about a peaceful rise, while on the other side you have a country that wants to scrap the peace clause of its constitution. On the one side you have a country that, at its strongest, has mostly been a friend of Korea. On the other side, you have a country that, at its strongest, tried to wipe Korea off the map. It’s obvious which country one should keep an eye on.
Yeah, Andy, another Mongolian invasion of Japan is imminent!
The same can be said of another Japanese invasion of China.
Okay then, defense against what? It’s not North Korea. I mean you don’t need Aegis to defend against N. Korea. And if your theory is correct, then it must be defense against Japan, because, according to you, Korea shouldn’t be belligerent to China, and instead should deter Japan. Now if Korea has to deter Japan, then should it just stand by while the Japanese Aegis fleet increases to 8? According to your reasoning, I don’t think so. So, using your line of logic, one can conclude Korea is getting Aegis because the Japanese has them. Thank you for helping me prove that.
I didn’t insinuate a connection. I said you sound like the netizens that populate that forum. And from reading your comments you do sound like them.
why is any of this a surprise?
from an outsider’s perspective koreans pretty much copy everything that japan does.
the funny thing is watching them squirm in discomfort denying that ‘X’ (
why is any of this a surprise?
from an outsider’s perspective koreans pretty much copy everything that japan does.
the funny thing is watching them squirm in discomfort denying that ‘X’ (fill in the blank with cars, steel, consumer electronics, pop culture, soccer, fleet strategy, fashion and hairdos) has anything to do with japanese influence and dare i say - envy?
@18
Pretty much true for all the other things, but doesn’t Korea have a longer history in professional soccer than Japan? (at least that’s what Korean 2002 World Cup propaganda told me)
“doesn’t Korea have a longer history in professional soccer than Japan?”
Pretty much true. Korea was always counted as a soccer nation in East Asia, Japan as a baseball nation. The huge success of J-League (the Japanese professional soccer league which began in 1993) was a great surprise for me. I never thought that soccer will became a major spectator sports in Japan during my lifetime.
Credit for the success was given to marketing and the naming of the league, J-League. Pretty soon, the Japanese music industry began to refer their music as “J-Pop”, books stores began selling books by Haruki Murakami and Banana Yoshimoto as J-Literature, and in cinematic reviews their was a corner called “J-movies”.
Some of the critics in Japan mocked this obsession with initial letters as the rise of “J-Nationalism”.
Apparently the Koreans found the naming also cool so they changed the name of their professional soccer league which has more history and tradition than the Japanese one, following the Japanese example, as “K-league” and it seems that they are also obsessed with initial letters now.
To be fair, it is not only the Korean. The Singapore league is named “S-League”, the Vietnamese one is “V-League” and the Malaysian one is “M-League”.
Personally, I never really liked the name “J-League”.
Mins0306:
You’re confusing yourself.
1. Mins, you’re guilty of a flaw in reasoning. You assume that Korean Aegis ships are designed to counter Japanese Aegis ships. Your assumption is flawed; Aegis ships are not designed to defeat other Aegis ships. Aegis ships are designed primarilly to defeat fighters and anti-ship missiles. If Korea were concerned with neutralizing Japan’s Aegis fleet, it would have built a different structure- probably more submarine oriented, like the Chinese.
2. One of the key aspects of the Aegis platform is missile defense. North Korea has a wide range of advanced missiles. The Aegis platform can certainly be used for defense against North Korean missiles.
3. Aegis ships are essential to building a bluewater navy.
4. Norway is integrating Aegis ships into its destroyers. Is Norway also trying to defeat/imitate Japan?
5.Mins0306, Korea is a peninsula, so naval defense is essential to Korea’s security. The best navies in the world have an Aegis platform, it makes sense for Korea to have one as well.
6. The guys on that forum call for war with Japan. I don’t. I call for peace with Japan and the best way for Korea to ensure peace is to build a strong army.
7. But with that said, your main flaw is who you cite as a threat. From a naval standpoint, Japan remains the biggest threat to Korea. Japan has the best navy in the region. Japan continues to augment its offensive capability. Japan still harbors confusion over its WWII legacy. If Korea were to keep an eye on anyone, it would be Japan. Don’t behave like those yangban fools who believed that joining hands with Japan would spare Korea from Japanese aggression.
Andy Jackson:
Mr. Jackson, the odds of a Japanese attack on China are far more likely than a Mongolian attack on Japan. Japan has the ability to attack China, Mongolia does not have the ability to attack Japan.
Now of course, you’ll say that Japan has been peaceful for more than 60 years. Ha. Mr. Jackson, it is U.S. military power, not Japanese good intentions, that has deterred Japan from waging war in Northeast Asia.
Oh well if they TALKED about it then it must be true. I read that on Wikipedia…
Janus:
Yeah, they’re talking about it, which, I must say, is better than anoter country that’s scrapping the non-aggression clause of its constitution.
My point was obvious. But I guess I have to hold your hand through everything, don’t I?
YoungRocco2,
1. You forget one thing. The Aegis can also be used as a long range surveillence and command and control platform, much like AWACS. Now if your opposition has AWACS, then shouldn’t you have AWACS too, so that your forces are not disadvantaged? I’m not talking about defeating other Aegis ships, I’m talking about capability. Not that I believe we should buy something just because the other guy, who happens to be a non threat, has it.
2. Unfortunately, the ROK government has decided not to give a ABM capability to the ROK Aegis ships citing NK and PRC “sensitivity”.
3. Well not that essential. The Royal Navy is a blue water navy and it has no Aegis in its fleet. The Singapore Navy is building a blue water navy and it doesn’t have Aegis in its plans.
4. Good that you mentioned the Norwegians. Now why is the S. Korean Navy buying an Aegis ship that costs $ 1 billion instead of buying something more affordable like the Norwegian ships which only cost $480 million?
5. Same as point no.3. What about the Royal Navy among others?
6. You contradict yourself in points no. 6 and 7. You say that you want peace with Japan, but on the other hand you say that Japan is Korea’s biggest threat. One thing I forgot to mention those forum members also think that Japan is Korea’s biggest threat. Now if your neighbor is at peace with you then he/she is at best an ally, and at the least a neutral party. However if your neighbor is a threat you won’t have peace, a tense ceasefire with a few shots traded over the border, but not peace.
“Yeah, they’re talking about it, which, I must say, is better than anoter country that’s scrapping the non-aggression clause of its constitution.”
I guess it depends on interpretation, but as far as I’m aware, no country has anything such as a “non-aggression” clause in their Constitution. “No War,” quite a few have those, including Japan, but defending one sovereignty also require acts of aggression that I doubt any country would deny itself of that capability.
I’m assuming you’re referring to debate about Article 9 of the Japanese’s Constitution:
“第九条 日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する。
“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
二 前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めない。
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”
(Disclaimer: I’m not fluent in Japanese, that is from wikipedia.org and I’m assuming the translation is accurate)
According to the second paragraph, if I was a Constitutional’s lawyer, I can probably make a very good case that the Japanese Defense Force in its current state is very much unconstitutional and shouldn’t even exit. According to my interpretation, that’s the gist of the debate around Article 9, its wording and the existence of the JSDF. They already have a “land, sea, and air forces” (all war potentials), might as well amend the Constitution to reflect reality.
If the article is the shape of thing to come and with the current exercise, Malabar 2007, demonstrate; Japan is going to be working more closely and actively with their Allies, might as well make it lawful for JSDMF to be able defend not only themselves but also her escorts.
“…the odds of a Japanese attack on China are far more likely than a Mongolian attack on Japan. Japan has the ability to attack China, Mongolia does not have the ability to attack Japan.
Now of course, you’ll say that Japan has been peaceful for more than 60 years. …it is U.S. military power, not Japanese good intentions, that has deterred Japan from waging war in Northeast Asia.”
Young Rocco, this is now really wild conjecture…
YR: Yeah, they’re talking about it, which, I must say, is better than anoter country that’s scrapping the non-aggression clause of its constitution.
My point was obvious. But I guess I have to hold your hand through everything, don’t I?
Well, on the one hand you have Japan, which has been quiescent for 60+ years. And then you have China, which has fought border clashes with India, Russia, Vietnam and the Philippines and staked a claim to the entire South China Sea - waters through which all of South Korea’s oil are shipped.
I have talked to Japanese and to Chinese. The Japanese are diffident. The Chinese are arrogant and full of a sense of entitlement to large chunks of additional Asian territory. Japan was an expansive power for at most a few hundred years of its history. China has had a 2000-year tradition of territorial expansion. (China is itself an empire built on the remains of the formerly independent nations of Northeast Asia. Its so-called dialects are the remains of ancient languages, and are as distinct as French and German). In fact, if Japan hadn’t invaded Korea, it would now be a province of China. The Chinese I have spoken to are acutely aware of this.
The Treaty of Shimonoseki, in which the independence of Korea from China was formalized, is what the Chinese call an unequal treaty. In time, it may be repudiated by the Chinese in its entirety. If I were Korean, I would worry more about this possibility than the possibility of Japanese militarism. Japanese empire-building was a phase. Chinese empire-building has been a 2000-year tradition. Why do you think China is a continental-sized nation? Because all the provinces decided to get together of their own free will? A map of China and Japan through history will tell you all you need to know about the relative propensity of each country to expand its boundaries.
Zhangfei is back. I always thought that he is a Korean anti-chinese worm, but now I know that he is a non-korean anti-chinese worm. Maybe an american one? Since US has the biggest concentration of anti-china worms in the whole world.
Korea is not afraid of China. US is afraid of china. And for nothing. US is not doing Koran a favor by ‘defending Korea from Chinese agression’. Korea is doing US a favor by containing China. It’s not in korea’s best interest to antagnize china, even though many americans try to make koreans believe that china is a threat to korea.
In the end, it’s all out of US’s self-interest, fear, and ego problem. koreans should not get involved. The best strategy is to remain neutral. By allowing usa soliders stationed in korea, they are already doing america a big favor in their plan to ‘contain china.’
Before God destroys a person or a nation, he makes him crazy first. Many americans are already crazy. The whole nation’s mindset is all about being #1, potential competitor, paranoia, and fear. The politicans are experts in exploiting this through fear-mongering. And their powerful but irresponsible media are not helping either. Nobody is there truly thinking of replacing america, but america will destroy itself. They are crazy. And we all know crazy people are a menace to themselves and to others. They are the number 1 threat to world peace right now. Just see which country has been the most active in wars in the 20th century. It should be an easy answer if you are not blind or pathetically in denial.
What Zhang Fei said.
Young Rocco (in small doses) is always good for a laugh but what is scary is the idea that ROK defense planners may actually be thinking along the lines he sketched out. If they are, you can understand why an increasingly Finlandized South Korea has no place at the table in evolving security alliance talks.
“Peaceful Rise” was a Chinese elder statesman’s suggested rhetorical measure to counter overseas “China threat” talk, but was vetoed as a PR slogan by the PLA military as possibly having a connotation of softness on Taiwan.
xixi: Just see which country has been the most active in wars in the 20th century.
This is a prime example of the Chinese sophistry. First limit the scope of your examination to the 20th century. Why not look at periods in which China was strong? Why not look at Chinese maps throughout its long history, from its origins as a small kingdom on the banks of the Yellow River? Because that would put the lie to his contention that the US is a warlike country in contrast to China. The reality is that China is a warlike country that expands its boundaries in times of strength, typically by massacring the barbarians on its borders and populating these borderlands with penal colonies.
Throughout the 20th century, the US been involved in wars to deny other powers a monopoly over territory, not to grab land for itself. China’s wars have all been direct or indirect land grabs, with one exception*. Why did China aid North Vietnam? Because a strong South Vietnam allied with the US would have thwarted Chinese territorial goals in the South China Sea.
* Why did China pull out of North Korea? Because the alternative was to fight the Soviet Union. This was an exception prompted by military weakness rather than principles.
#27 xixi:
“Zhangfei is back. I always thought that he is a Korean anti-chinese worm, but now I know that he is a non-korean anti-chinese worm. Maybe an american one? Since US has the biggest concentration of anti-china worms in the whole world…”
Mon ami, if you want to give your rather commonplace “worm” insult a dash of revolutionary flair, call ol’ zhang a “gusano” — the standard insult used by the Castroites against “counterrevolutionaries”.
In the absence of gravatars, it’ll give your posting that “internationale” flavor (one that would be otherwise supplied by the standard picture of “Che” in his beret).
In fact, the very reality of the Treaty of Shimonoseki having to recognize Korea’s independence from China tells you something of Korea’s previous relationship to China - it was another in a 2000-year line of border states ripe for annexation into China proper. Koreans may have forgotten this significance of this treaty’s provisions. The Chinese have not. The average Chinese already sees it as an “unequal” treaty (which is any treaty with provisions unfavorable to Chinese interests). Now, a basic Chinese principle is that “unequal” treaties are a stain on Chinese honor, to be repudiated when China is strong enough. Can Korea be confident that China will not - in time - repudiate the other provisions of the Treaty of Shimonoseki - including the one that recognizes Korea’s independence?
So the Mind and Qing dynasties were strong and they never invaded Korea. How do you explain that? Korea was a vassal state to China only in name. Chinese armies didn’t go there to occupy the country. They were called in only when korea was attacked by Japan. Also it’s inappropriate to use today’s modern nation concepts on the relationship between Korea and China at that time.
I won’t call China the most peaceful country in the world, but Europeans and Americans are definitely more aggressive and expansive. China has been in existence for thousands of years and its territory expansion pales compared to white Europeans. For most of its history, Chinese people were fighting a defensive war. The nomadic tribes from the north descended there to rob, pillage, kill and conquer one after another. The huns, xianbeis, turks, Tibetans, Kitans, Jurchens, Mongols, Manchus… Sometimes the Chinese repelled them, sometimes the Chinese were conquered. But then they sinicized and became Chinese. More than one Chinese dynasty built and rebuilt the great wall to separate themselves from the nomads. That structure was for defense, not offense. Nothing says better of the Chinese passiveness than the Wall. The island of Taiwan was just off the coast of China but the Chinese didn’t start to move there until early Qing dynasty. How can you call that an expansive people?
China never invaded Japan, but Japan invaded China when it became stronger. China never invaded Britain and France, but they came here to kill, pillage and burn when they couldn’t sell Chinese opium any more. Chinese surveillance planes don’t fly off American coast, but American plane fly over Chinese coast every day. China didn’t go to Africa to enslave people, but the white europeans went there, made locals slaves, and then sold them to the new continent.
But the Chinese should not be passive any more. As a Chiense saying goes, ‘the trees want to be quiet and peaceful but the evil wind just won’t stop blowing.’ In todays’ world the jungle rule prevails. The predators like USA won’t tolerate a China which it sees as a potential competitor. It doesn’t matter what your true intents. All matters is what USA claims what your intents are. You want to develop your country and raise your people out of poverty, but in the eyes of paranoid US, you are a threat. China should be strong since China woun’t be accepted by the west. Only being strong can China defends itself. Chinese people learned this lesson in a hard way.
@Paul H,
To be honest I don’t know what you are saying here. I am not a native English speaker which you may have already find out. There are tons of words I don’t know and there are nuances that I don’t catch. I searched my mind and couldn’t find a more harsh word, that’s why I settled with ‘worm’. But that should not matter. I am just so sick and tired of the low creature called China bashers epitomized by Zhangfei. It makes me angrier because he is using the name of my favorite hero figure’s from romance of the three kingdoms.
“So the Mind and Qing dynastries were strong and they never invaded Korea. How do you explain that? ”
Simply not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....n_of_Korea
Perhaps the same reason the Soviets never invaded Finland after WWII — after the Manchu Invasion of 1627, they simply never had to.
xixi: China has been in existance for thousands of years and it’s territory expansion pales compared to white Europeans.
What are you talking about? The Roman empire is done. The Chinese empire still stands. When the Republics of Chu and Qin regain their independence, you can tell me about the end of Chinese empire. Take a look at a Chinese map at China’s inception with the creation of the Xia state. Take a look at it today. It’s not that complicated.
xixi: For most of its history, Chinese people were fighting a defensive war.
Defensive wars in which China expanded its territory relentlessly and drove the Huns and Turks into the Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe? Please. Take a look at the evolving map of China over the ages and you’ll see that this is a load of garbage. China’s standard practice was to take land from the barbarians and blame them for aggression when they tried to take their land back.
xixi: china never invaded Japan, but Japan invaded China when it became stronger.
China invaded Japan twice. Unless you don’t consider the Yuan dynasty China. In which case the 5,000 years of continuous history the Party is always on about is clearly a lie.
xixi: China never invaded Britain and France, but they came here to kill, pillage and burn when they couldn’t sell chinese opium any more.
China invades those it can invade. And throughout history, that has meant every one of its immediate neighbors. Reach has always been its problem. The other problem is political control. You have to hand it to the Chinese. They understand, as the Europeans did not, that lack of territorial contiguity means serious difficulties in retaining political control.
xixi: Chinese survillence planes don’t fly off american coast, but American plane fly over Chinese coast every day.
China planes don’t do that because they can’t reach and they don’t have the bases. They don’t have the bases because nobody really trusts China enough to allow a Chinese base on their soil, such is China’s reputation for territorial rapacity and double-dealing.
xixi: China didn’t go to Africa to enslave people, but the white europeans went there, made locals slaves, and then sold them to the new continent.
Europeans did not enslave people. Africans did so and sold them to the highest bidder, whether European, African or Arab. China had a deep and wide pool of slave labor* and a submissive population from which to take that labor, so it was pointless to buy slaves. Who the heck do you think built the Grand Canal and the Great Wall? It also had access to a deep pool of slaves (captives) from military campaigns against the barbarians on its borders. Far cheaper to buy a Chinese slave than to buy an African one, especially since it was the charming (and legal) Chinese practice to sell their children or their wives into slavery.
* The great thing about Chinese slavery (from the standpoint of whatever official enslaves you) is that you not only work gratis, but your family has to feed you, as well.
xixi: Chinese survillence planes don’t fly off american coast, but American plane fly over Chinese coast every day.
To be fair, we don’t send spies to China to rip off their secrets, but Chinese spies steal our secrets all the time. Why? Because it’s hard to recruit highly-placed Caucasians in China’s governmental structure - there aren’t any. Note that the Chinese have no problem entering Japanese waters to conduct surveillance. Like I said, the Chinese aren’t really nice guys - they just don’t have any range yet.
#34 xixi:
“gusano” simply means “worm” in Spanish. For Cuban communists it is an insult applied to Cuban anti-Communists.
XiXi needs to get out more. S/he’s spewing Party-line bollocks.
And doing it from the U.S., to boot.
These fifth columnists need to be watched closely.
I love you guys. You guys are incredible. Who can support my point better than you guys? Just when I have Manchus and Mongols in my list, you guys couldn’t wait to throw the examples of Mongols invading Japan and Manchus invading Korea. They were NOT Chinese at that time, is that too hard for you retarded to grasp? They were both nomadic people from the north. If they were Chinese the Mongolians didn’t have to decimate the population of Sichuan province, and the Manchus didn’t have to massacre the Yangzhou and Jiading city. Actually the Chinese Ming dynasty were allies against the Manchus invasion. China and Korea were both victims in the hands of Manchus. China didn’t invade Korea. China was the victim in the hands of Mongols too. Mongolians invaded Japan, China didn’t. Mongolians sacked Bagdad in Iraq, should you say that Chinese invaded Iraq too? Actually, the Mongolian prime minister suggested kill all Chinese with surnames of Zhang, Wang, Li, Zhao and Liu, which comprise about 40% of Chinese. Even today Manchus and Mongols in China remain distinct people from Han Chinese, even though they are Chinese citizens. I guess that’s too complex for your primitive brains to understand too, haha.
And the following is specifically toward Zhangfei. Throwing a few Chinese words here and there doesn’t make you intelligent, it makes you laughable. Tell me out of the 7 warring states including Qin and Chu, which represented China? So you are telling me that Qin was the true China and they conquered the other 6 kingdoms and unified China? Is that your evidence for Chinese expansion? You are saying that People in Chu and other countries were less Chinese than citizens of Qin? Stop showing your scattering knowledge in Chinese history. You are a joke.
I think I am entitled in my opinion. And when it doesn’t agree with yours, it’s party-line, and I am 5th columnist. You guys are so lovely. Am I doing anything illegal here that i should be watched? I do my work, I pay my tax, more than most Ameicans. I love you name calling, it put smile on my face.
Don’t flatter yourself. The throne of #1 nation you treasure so much is not so desirable to others. A nation of more and more immigrants, a nation living on debt, the nation hated by 1.5 billion musims and many many more, a nation full of paranoid narrow-minded bigots who are getting fatter by the day. I can go on and on. This is not what I hope for China. I just hope China to be richer and its citizens can enjoy better life, and at the same time build a strong military, because even though we don’t intend to invade, we have to defend ourselves against the real predators here whose hands soaked in blood but when they turn around and put on a suit and tie, they are the symbol of civilized gentleman.
Last point, if not for the sake of improving my English, I wouldn’t even visit this site, let alone wasting my time arguing with a bunch of dim-witted like you.
“They were NOT chinese at that time, is that too hard for you retarded to grasp?”
So are the chinese continuing to illegaly occupying Manchuria and Inner Mongolia?
yes, the Chinese are illegally occupying Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, the minor tribe lands. Illegally seeking Taiwan.
Xixi, you can’t have it both ways.
I know for sure you’re reading this. You came back.
Humans are curious folk.
Tell me, Xixi. Sui Dynasty and Tang Dynasty. And Han Dynasty. Han Chinese, no?
They never invaded Korea? End of argument.
Qing and Mongolian Empire didn’t draw all their troops from their own ethnic populations. That was impossible. It’s pretty much a fact that many prominent Han Chinese generals were in those armies, let alone millions of Han Chinese serving as pawns for Qing and Mongolian Empire.
I suspect the Mongolians are upset that PRC claims Mongolian Empire history as Chinese. I can be wrong.
You don’t think sinicization is just an attempt by the Han Chinese to hold on to all the Qing Dynasty land where they haver zero legitimacy at present day? That’s what I think Sun Yat Sen was thinking about way back when as well.
China should be split up 20 ways, just like the Old Soviet Union.
My highschool teacher, who is now dead, said this would inevitably happen in our lifetime.
Do not under estimate the ethnic, inherent desire to seek independence.
Historically Han Chinese land is limited to around the Yellow River and the Yangtze River.
Han Chinese are expansionists. They sinicize tribes, try to unite PRC under the love of money, probably erased all minor tribe’s histories, almost erased the identity of Manchurians and Khitans, and is in the process of stealing Koguryo and Bal Hae from Korea.
Vietnamese and Koreans don’t like the Chinese. That’s a fact.
I am sure the Tibetans will rejoice…
Mins0306:
You’re still making mistakes.
1. I didn’t forget anything. You claimed that Korea is attempting to counter Japanese power, I claimed otherwise by pointing out that if this were Korea’s real aim, then it would have invested in advanced anti-ship missiles.
2. The ROK navy can add ABM capability to the Aegis ship at a later date.
3. The Royal navy is considering purchasing ships with an AEGIS system, Mins. You know that.
4. Korea is building a more advanced AEGIS ship because it is in a more volatile region.
5. The Royal Navy has plans to acquire Aegis ships.
6. Only a contradiction to a person who doesn’t understand the issue. Assessing your threats, and then making moves to counter those threats, is not the same as calling for war.
7. “If your neighbor is at peace with you, then he or she is at best an ally and at least neutral”
Not at all. It depends on how the peace was achieved. If the peace was achieved when one side decided, voluntarilly, that their occupation was wrong, then indeed your theory is valid. If, on the other hand, one side was bombed into submission by a third party and was forced to sue for peace, the peace may reflect lack of opportunity rather than genuine remorse.
Zhang Fei:
If Japan had invaded Korea, Korea would now be a province of China, huh? You’re living in fantasy land, boy. If China were interested in making Korea into a province, why didn’t it annex North Korea after the Korean War? Neither Japan nor the U.S. could have stopped China from annexing Korea after if it had so desired.
You’ve been hanging out with these fools for too long.
YoungRocco2,
As a commentor commented you make everyone laugh.
1. I didn’t claim that Korea is buying Aegis to counter Japan.
I claimed that Korea is copying Japan. There’s a bit of
difference here. And didn’t you mention that the best way
to counter Aegis was submarines? Why are you now
mentioning anti-ship missiles?
2. Okay, it is possible, we’ll see.
3. If you are mentioning the Daring class destroyers, they
don’t have AEGIS. Something similar but it’s not AEGIS.
And you skipped the Singapore Navy. And oh yes, there’s
also the Indian Navy, which I might add doesn’t have
AEGIS and currently has no plans to.
4. A more volatile region. Yeah if you consider NK, it is
volatile but you don’t need AEGIS for that. So from your
perspective, who is it for? Even if SK required a more
advanced AEGIS ship than the Norwegians, there are cheaper
alternatives to the 1 billion USD King Sejong.
5. I’ve already said my piece.
6. and 7. Okay then if you want to consider Japan a threat, that needs to be dealt with that’s up to you. But that still doesn’t change the fact that you sound like the Bemil forum members.
“Neither Japan nor the U.S. could have stopped China from annexing Korea after if it had so desired.”
Three things to make that comment erroneous: Nu-kuclear weapons (guess who DOESN’T have those at the time), old adage of war “logistics” and “You forgot Soviet Union!”
Mins:
I make everyone laugh? Good! You all make me laugh too. I’m laughing at you as I type this.
1. Mins, if you’re going to claim that Korea is copying Japan, you have to have stronger proof. Japan has Aegis ships. Korea gets an Aegis ship. Does Korea’s acquisition of an Aegis ship conclusively prove that Korea is copying Japan? Certainly not. The U.S. has Aegis ships. Japan has Aegis ships. Norway has Aegis ships. Spain has Aegis ships. Australia is making plans to get Aegis ships. By your slipshod logic then, Australia must be copying Korea.
You have a few examples of other similarities in force structure, Mins. What you fail to see is that because Japan’s navy is so large, it is inevitable that there will be some overlap in force structure. Doesn’t the U.S. have similar submarines? Who is to say that Korea isn’t trying to replicate U.S. naval capability with an eye toward eventual U.S. disengagement from the region? My point is that you need more proof before offering a claim. Otherwise, you sound like a dunce.
3. You need to read more, Mins. A simple Google search will show that the Royal Navy has plans to acquire an Aegis system.
4. My point does not depend on every navy having an Aegis system, Mins. Stop these little verbal sleights of hand. You’re wasting both my time and your own. My contention is that Korea should have an Aegis system because of the Aegis platforms formidable defense capabilities. It is up to you to prove otherwise.
5. You’re tripping over your own tongue, Mins. If the region’s volatility does not warrant AEGIS, kindly explain why Japan has eight Aegis ships. Also, didn’t you claim ealier that China was a threat to Korea? The United States and Japan both plan on using Aegis to counter China, so according to your theory, Korea should do the same, hence a reason to get Aegis.
6 and 7. Eh, whatever. And you sound like those late chosun yangban who claimed that “partnering” with Japan was a good idea. After all, it had been over 300 years since the Imjin War. What’s the worse that could have happened?
Mins, I know what you’re trying to achieve. You’re trying to get these guys to believe that you’re a “reasonable” Korean. You want them to believe that not all Koreans hate Japan. You have good intentions, but don’t let your quest for their acceptance cloud your judgment. If your neighbor twice breaks into your home are you going to keep an eye on that neighbor or not?
I think he’s calling you an Uncle Tom, Min.
Sun Wukyoung:
I’m not wrong at all. China had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in North Korea after the Korean War. Russia had nowhere near as many. If Russia were to fight China over North Korea, it would have fought at a huge disadvantage.
Secondly, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, what would have stopped an economically vibrant China from annexing an economically moribund North Korea?
You guys really need to learn to use common sense to see the big picture.
#52.
Yeah, he’s calling me an Uncle Tom.
The guy’s filled with nationalistic BS, so I guess it was expected.
#51.
OK, YoungRocco2. You have your views and I have mine. I could counter your comments because they are full of holes and you are avoiding my questions BTW but then instead of getting straight talk from you I will get more BS my way and accusations of me sucking up to the white man. So I’m going to stop right here and ignore you.
Serves me right for trying to have a reasonable debate with a nationalistic Korean netizen.
I’ve thought this for some time, but I figure now is as good as time as any to say it…
YoungRocco2 is a f*****g idiot.
I hope I won’t be banned for saying it.
mins0306…화이팅!!!
Thank you, Iceberg
YR: If Japan had invaded Korea, Korea would now be a province of China, huh? You’re living in fantasy land, boy. If China were interested in making Korea into a province, why didn’t it annex North Korea after the Korean War? Neither Japan nor the U.S. could have stopped China from annexing Korea after if it had so desired.
You’ve been hanging out with these fools for too long.
I’m not wrong at all. China had hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in North Korea after the Korean War. Russia had nowhere near as many. If Russia were to fight China over North Korea, it would have fought at a huge disadvantage.
Secondly, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, what would have stopped an economically vibrant China from annexing an economically moribund North Korea?
You guys really need to learn to use common sense to see the big picture.
This is kinda silly. If China had annexed North Korea, would Kim Il-Sung have stood by? Hordes of North Koreans would have flooded south, and the US would have joined with the Soviet Union to evict China. China was in a terrible position at the end of the Korean War. That is why it accepted the terms of the ceasefire, despite Mao’s central war aim to unify the peninsula under communist rule - it had lost just under a million dead. It was in no position to fight either the US or the Soviet Union in a reinvigorated war.
China was unable to annex North Korea for the same reason that it was unable to annex Mongolia - Soviet sponsorship for both countries. At minimum, massive Soviet aid to China would have been halted, not to mention the fact that Soviet divisions stood ready to collect on Chinese war debt. Soviet armies wouldn’t have had to invade North Korea to evict the Chinese, they would simply have driven down Manchuria and cut the Chinese forces off, and then slaughtered the starving and ammo-deprived Chinese with massed firepower.
This stuff about Chinese forces having more manpower in North Korea is irrelevant. The Soviets crushed the Japanese in Manchuria less than a decade before the Korean War, and the Japanese always beat the crap out of the Chinese Communists on the rare occasions they met up (the Chinese Communist strategy was to let the Chinese Nationalists destroy themselves fighting the Japanese, which they did). By the way, the same Soviet forces that crushed the Japanese in Manchuria had no problem moving to Europe to stomp Hitler’s guts out. Which is another way of saying that the Soviets would have had no problem moving their European divisions back to Asia to deal with China.
Even today, despite all the friendly rhetoric, the Soviets have their best and most well-equipped divisions near the Chinese border. Ditto with China.
The other really obvious thing YR has missed is that the Soviets were China’s arms supplier during the Korean War. Without Soviet supplies, the Chinese, with little industrial base of their own, were mostly limited to using Japanese war surplus and limited quantities of American weapons captured from the Nationalists, whom they had just defeated. How would the Chinese have armed themselves without Soviet assistance, in the event of a break over North Korea?
“3. You need to read more, Mins. A simple Google search will show that the Royal Navy has plans to acquire an Aegis system.”
Yes, back in the 90’s when the Daring-class was still being planned out. With the launch of the HMS Daring last year, “common sense” would realize which direction the Royal Navy decided to go with. SAMPSON is a fine system, with its own unique pro and con versus AEGIS.
Zhang Fei, good stuffs! In addition, the Soviet Union provided the bulk of air support for N. Korea and the PRC. While the UN were outnumbered, air superiority and superior firepower were the force multipliers for the UN. Without Russian’s MiG off setting those multipliers, the term, “lambs to the slaughter” come to mind.
Like Zhang Fei said, Manchuria. UN bombers were under orders not to encroached into Manchuria during war (except for a few rare occasions), however, if China decided to do what you said supposedly it could easily done; supply depots in Manchuria would be subjected to destruction and logistically, if the PRC couldn’t advance further South than Seoul while Manchuria was safe. They’ll be sitting duck when Manchuria and the supplies are gone.
It’s funny YR2 mentioned Australia’s AEGIS. When Australia was in the process of selecting its AEGIS ship, according to the Korean media, it “benchmarked” Korea’s KDX-3.
http://www.chosun.co.kr/nation.....90037.html
When Korean nationalists and military enthuiasists got word of this, there were calls for Australia to “imitate” Korea and adopt a design similar to the KDX-3 or better yet select the KDX-3 as Australia’s next Air Warfare Destroyer. (This despite the fact that the KDX-3 was not on the list although the Evolved Design Option proposed to Australia by Gibbs & Cox resembled the KDX-3)
There were also hopes of Korean companies being named as subcontractors for the project, plus expectations of loyalty fees from technology transfers to Australia.
Of course Australia exercised “common sense” and instead of “imitating” Korea, went for a cost effective design in the form of the Spanish F100 class AEGIS destroyers.
At least the Aussie won’t be bragging that its AEGIS destroyers are bigger and better, unlike the Koreans who couldn’t help pointing out that their AEGIS is bigger and better than the Japanese AEGIS destroyers.
Not that I believe that Korea should not deploy an air warfare destroyer with AEGIS or AEGIS like capabilities.