Japanese Fighter Jets Enter Chinese Air Defense Zone

Japanese F-15 fighter jets.

From NetEase:

Multiple Japanese Military Planes Enter East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone, Tracked and Monitored by Chinese Air Force

China News Service August 7 report — China Air Force spokesperson Major General Shen Jinke made a statement in Beijing on the 7th that China’s Air Force conducted a patrol of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone on the 6th, strengthening its monitoring of targets in the ADIZ, protecting the order and safety of the relevant airspace over the East China Sea.

On August 6th, when multiple Japanese air self-defense force aircraft entered China’s East China Sea ADIZ conducting extensive reconnaissance activities, China’s Air Force responded with necessary tracking and monitoring. Japanese F-15 fighter jets twice attempted to approach Chinese patrolling aircraft, with the China’s Air Force adopting reasonable, proper, and restrained measures in response to the mid-air threat.

Shen Jinke indicated that China’s establishment of the ADIZ is a defensive act to protect national security, in order to better protect the normal order of aircraft in the airspace above the East China Sea, and ensure flight safety. Since the implementation of patrols over the East China Sea ADIZ, China’s Air Force has carried out monitoring and identification of foreign aircraft into the ADIZ, and taken appropriate measures in response to different threats, safeguarding the nation’s air defense security. (End)

Comments from NetEase:

5ac63baa820973ee4355bcc1 [网易河南省手机网友]:

I used to be in the military, and to be honest, I normally was afraid to read news about military affairs, because everyone’s comments are too disappointing/frightening. Everyone, be honest, in today’s society, other than soldiers, who else actually serves the people? Everyone is quick to say how you taxpayers are supporting/providing for us, but do we not also pay taxes? Who are we providing for with our taxes? I won’t deny that the military has areas where there is corruption, but what have we basic-level soldiers embezzled from you people?

You people think those of us serving in the military have nothing to do all day and just doing things for show? Do you know how many hours of training us soldiers have to do in a day? Do you people know how many times we can go home in a year? Do you people know what it means when we ridicule ourselves with “with both eyes open, we labor until the lights go out, with both eyes closed, we raise our vigilance”? Conscripts just make 600 kuai a month, while petty officers get about 3000, but do you know what we have to do to get this?

“For country and for dignity/honor” may be empty words for you people, but it is very personal for us. My father participated in the Wenchuan Earthquake rescue mission. It can be said that when our homeland suffers a calamity, there is only us, only us who risk our lives rushing forward, while you people are all retreating backwards, with only us soldiers charging forward into the most dangerous places. During earthquakes, everyone watches the news, but you people are watching it because it is exciting [watching out of interest], but do you know how many families are closely following news about the disaster area? Because their sons are on the front lines.

Friends, our country is not rich and strong, and our armed forces cannot be called first-rate when it comes to military affairs, but in the whole world, only China has it written into its military regulations that soldiers who abandon civilians in times of danger and thus abandon their post/duty must be punished as desertion. Yes, the United States is very strong and powerful, very rich and prosperous, and it dares to challenge any country in the world, but they are content to only criticize China [and not actually attack]. Why? That’s because China has a group of stupid soldiers like this that you people curse at/make fun of every day. The existence of soldiers is not to fight wars, but for peace, as guarding the peace is our responsibility/duty. I daresay that China’s soldiers have done right by the people of our country, so I ask you people to be more careful/considerate/fair when you speak.

包子馒头烧饼麻花 [网易浙江省嘉兴市网友]:

Japanese fighter jets are coming! What happened to shooting down the enemy planes like the Major General talked about???

风毒翩翩 [网易上海市浦东新区网友]:

Condemnation! End of matter!

[Note: This comment refers to a popular belief that China is too soft on foreign policy, always condemning the actions of others against it but never actually doing anything about it.]

网易福建省厦门市网友 [joey0888]: (responding to above)

Reasonable, proper, restrained. “Restrained” is probably the only thing he really wanted to say.

cdjmwcg [网易福建省漳州市网友]: (responding to above)

It should be understood like this: They adopted the reasonable and proper restrained measures, in response to the threat.

张宁丽水 [网易澳大利亚网友]: (also responding to 风毒翩翩)

What about the Major General?

俄爹普京大帝 [网易上海市网友]:

Once again [the government] begins biting [attacking] Japan. [See below]

土包子进城做皇帝 [网易美国网友]:

Condemn, condemn, and condemn some more! After condemning, they can get off work and go to the cafeteria!

网易天津市网友 ip:125.39.*.*

A few years ago, a machine gun could kill several hundred Japanese devils, then there weren’t even kitchen knives, so they began ripping Japanese devils apart with bare hands!

汉平倭 [网易浙江省舟山市网友]:

According to how the Japanese characterize it, didn’t Japanese military planes encroach upon Chinese territorial air space? [Refers to how Japanese have reported Chinese planes encroaching upon its airspace]

xueliang1141234 [网易辽宁省大连市网友]:

The moment there’s a big problem within the country, whether it is petitioning or increasing oil prices or real estate or government officials or natural disasters… as long as there’s a big [pubic] problem, [the government] makes media reports about Japan. If that doesn’t solve the problem [by successfully diverting attention on other problems], they make media reports about the South China Sea. If that still doesn’t solve the problem, then they make reports about the DL and the like.

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Better “condemnation” than war.

  • …better “condemnation” than war.

    • donscarletti

      They should totally shoot down a Japanese fighter in international airspace now and then. It would help Abe out in getting support to change the constitution.

    • Guest

      What all these young nationalists don’t understand is that China’s development and increase in wealth and power can only occur if there is peace (and ongoing trade with countries which hold much of the world’s wealth and technology), whereas a war is the best thing that can happen to the US and Japan right now (to stimulate their economies and invigorate their tired people).

  • geraldshields

    Whatever. I’d rather they (The Chinese and the Japanese) keep talking. It’s better than war.

    • mr.wiener

      Better, jaw, jaw than war, war.

      • Rick in China

        Maybe. Sometimes the former lasts indefinitely with many seemingly smaller and indirect consequences that may be worse than the latter’s often more definitive yet apparently more damaging approach.

  • Kai

    I think the first comment may be difficult to understand without some context of the online chatter recently in China about the military. For example, there was a “saluting our soldiers” (or something like that) hashtag on Weibo.

    • Was my first comment deleted?

      At first it said something like, “Your comment is awaiting moderation”, and then it just disappeared.

      • Zappa Frank

        I think is a random problem of disqus, it happened to me too and not only on chinasmack

      • Kai

        I deleted the earlier version of the “…better ‘condemnation’ than war” comment because you made two of them, the second with the attached screenshot and first without it. I figured you didn’t need the first one anymore and would prefer to keep the one with the attached screenshot.

    • Misiooo

      You mean 5ac63baa820973ee4355bcc1? Yeh, I read it and while doing so I saw myself some 20 years ago when I was young and idealistic, when I volunteered to visit this beautiful country called Bosnia. Gosh, there is a long way ahead this 5ac63baa820973ee4355bcc1 guy…

      • Kai

        Yeah, him. I don’t think he says anything particularly naive though. It seems like he’s responding to other netizens’ comments about soldiers that he thinks to be unfair. He tries to set things straight and appeal to people’s sympathies. Sounds like he’s begging for people to be more fair and understanding to his lot.

  • Guy

    I feel that it’s worth mentioning that the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone that the Japanese flew over covers the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Interpret that as you will.

    • Germandude

      I like how your map simply erazed Ishigaki, which is Japanese territory.

      • Rick in China

        You know the reply will be “Yah, those are ours too! They’re next!”

        • Germandude

          @Guy already replied but his comment is awaiting approval. He basically says he just posted the first map he found through a google search without intentions.

          I wasn’t refering to him but the map.

          • Rick in China

            Oh – no, I didn’t mean anything against him, meant it more as a snarky reply for the pro-Diaoyu crowd of “this land is ours too” mainland supporters and their ever-growing reach.

          • Germandude

            Too late, Leonidas was there before.

          • Alex Dương

            In the past, you’ve made comments that were blatantly irredentist. I think you once said something like it’s “stupid / retarded” that Inner Mongolia is part of China and not Mongolia because “the name says it all.” Well, Chinese claims to Diaoyu are based on the same principle of irredentism that you perhaps unintentionally use to claim that Inner Mongolia ought to be Mongolian.

            This gets us back to a question that you never answered: where do you draw the line? How far back do you want to go in time to justify a claim?

          • Rick in China

            I appreciate your out of place paraphrasing and calling them quotes, “the name says it all.” .. laughable. Misquote and paraphrase me all you like – it doesn’t make your point any stronger. First of all, nothing I’ve said is irredentist, I don’t think countries *should* be trying to ‘take’ other countries or regions they think they own, I think that those matters would be best left up to international courts to settle dispute. I don’t even know what you’re talking about with “a question that you never answered”, do you keep a journal of conversations in your pocket and review for an opportunity to jump out with misplaced “Ah-ha!”s? Sad.

            Relating Senkaku islands to places like Inner Mongolia is ridiculous. China only tried to claim the islands once natural resources were discovered in the area. China has never occupied or inhabited the islands. China has never once ‘owned’ them, nor been seen to have owned them in any manner – (potentially) having them drawn on some ancient map is all they can claim, and that’s hard to argue as meaning little more than shit all. Like so many territorial disputes, especially those China is currently engaged in, they just want to pillage the area of natural resources and try to fit whatever justifications into a box to make it so.

            I wont bother entertaining your ridiculous non-sequitur any further.

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t even know what you’re talking about with “a question that you
            never answered”, do you keep a journal of conversations in your pocket
            and review for an opportunity to jump out with misplaced “Ah-ha!”s? Sad.

            No, but it’s pretty easy to remember when a person is trying to “destroy” an argument by unsuccessfully attempting to illustrate how absurd it is:

            Let me get this straight – you’re saying that a couple hundred years ago China invaded a territory that they did not control, nor ethnically populate, committed genocide, and oppressed the region pretty consistently until now – therefor that area belongs to China, am I right?

            The question I asked you then, which you did not answer, was “what’s long enough, then?”

            Why does this matter? Here you are claiming (incorrectly, by the way) that China never controlled Diaoyu / Senkaku, thus you don’t recognize Chinese claims as valid. But you’ve previously acknowledged, however grudgingly, that China has, in fact, controlled Xinjiang since 1758. Yet, that is not enough for you, as you still do not recognize the validity or legitimacy of Chinese claims to Xinjiang.

            So what do you need? Control isn’t good enough, time isn’t good enough, what’s good enough, Rick?

            And as for China never having controlled Diaoyu, I suggest you read Suganuma Unyru’s dissertation. He documents quite clearly that China controlled Diaoyu before 1895, which would make their present-day claims to the islands based on irredentism.

          • Rick in China

            Ignoring the false paraphrasing & misquotes to substantiate a superfluous argument, you’re making false parallels. Xinjiang and Senkaku islands are utterly different situations. Xinjiang is a region that was/is occupied and as such, “belongs” to someone – whom it belongs to at this time is China, who it arguably should belong to is perhaps the Xinjiang people who are ethnically, culturally, and linguistically very different..but were ‘conquered’. That’s a fair argument, and it’s not one that has an absolute correct answer..hence a valid discussion ensues. Senkaku, on the other hand, while you can point to one scholar who says it belongs to China for whatever reasons… is an uninhabited island geographically in-between a couple countries which has never really been inhabited, and can’t really be inhabited – and since the ownership has only really come into dispute in recent years due to the discovery of valuable natural resources – which makes the argument about who owns it is vastly different. In this case people can point to distant history which is pretty much unsubstantiated by anything meaningful, or they can look at the recent times where the evidence is more clear cut. In one case you have the argument that perhaps the people who still live on the land and were conquered deserve separatism and a country to call their own, in the other, you have no people involved and little more than maps and writings to lay claim.

            In response to your question that I did not answer, since that question has no answer, I consider it rhetorical. There is no sensible answer, because the issue it intends to solve can not be solved with such black and white simplicity. It is like saying, “how far is too far” in regards to how far will you go to make yourself look like an ass.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            Please give up your Canadian citizenship and get back to England, Canada belongs to the native people who are ethnically, culturally and linguistically very different, but were “conquered”.

          • Rick in China

            Not interested in engaging another fucktard who has nothing interesting to say, so I’ll leave it here.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            Pointing out your hypocrisy by reminding you that what English/Europeans have done in North America is worse than what Chinese have done in Xinjiang is of course not interesting to you.

          • Free Man

            Wow, so according to your statement it is ok to behave like some english/french idiots a couple of centuries ago?

            Because as I understand it, you justify this territorial “issue” by saying “You did it, too (couple of centuries ago)”.

            Nothing against french or english people from today, though what they did back then surely wasn’t right nor does it make it right when China does it today.

          • Alex Dương

            Actually, the point is that the Chinese already behaved like “some english/french idiots a couple of centuries ago.” The Uyghurs were not in control of Xinjiang at the time of conquest in 1758; the Zunghars were, and the reason you don’t hear about them in the news is because they were literally wiped out as a people.

          • Free Man

            My point is that justifying your actions because someone else did the same in the past doesn’t make it right. It only makes you look like someone from Kindergarten.

          • Alex Dương

            I never understood why consistency is considered to be “kindergarten”-like behavior.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            what they did back then surely wasn’t right nor does it make it right when China does it today.

            What does China do today?

          • Free Man

            China does the same shit to Tibet and other places in Asia that France and England (together with other european countries) did to the american continent. The only difference is, these countries did it quite a long time ago. Back then people in Europe were also burning innocent women, because they thought these women were witches. Europeans don’t do that nowadays, but you seem to be ok with such a behaviour.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            China does the same shit to Tibet TODAY? You must have been brainwashed really hard.
            The occupation and genocide of tibet took place quite a long time ago, just like the occupation and genocide of north america.

          • Free Man

            You are either brainwashed yourself or lying.

            Isn’t China constanly moving people and resources into Tibet, extending the rail network, supressing religion and the use of tibetan language and not permitting tibetans living in foreign countries to visit home, relatives and friends? Aren’t there chinese armed forces fighting against “terrorists” or “separatists” in Tibet? Aren’t there any tibetans committing suicide by burning them self because they feel oppressed by a growing chinese population?

            All these questions can be answered with a YES!

            Is there anyone hunting down native americans or forcing them to live in reservations today? Does anyone force them to become christians? Is it forbidden to them to speak their native language or keep their customs?

            All these questions can be answered with a NO!

            So stop fooling yourself and others.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            Seems you are applying two different standards to China and the US.
            “constanly moving people and resources into Tibet, extending the rail network” is comparable with “hunting down native americans”? Are you serious?

            The majority of primary schools in Tibet use Tibetan as the medium of instruction. Using native language as the medium of instruction in US public schools was ILLEGAL until 1990, and you call China suppressing the native language while the US doesn’t? How many public schools in the US use native language as the medium of instruction now?

            Speaking of the education, Chinese Universities lower the bar for ethinic minorities(including tibetans) by giving them bonus marks on Gaokao, what do American Universities do in comparism?

            “tibetans committing suicide by burning them self because they feel oppressed by a growing chinese population”
            Who the fuck in the right mind and are not cults/terrorists would feel being “opressed” and burn themselves because of a growing population of other ethnicities in their community?

            ” chinese armed forces fighting against “terrorists” or “separatists” in Tibet? ”
            Those who burnt down shops owned by Han/Hui people and killed innocent Han/Hui civilians are not terrorists? You are indeed brainwashed by western medias who used fake images and fake stories to report the 2008 riot.

          • Rick in China

            Not just that. Canada/US pays reparations. Not only do Native Americans in Canada have *control* over their traditional lands (or portions of them), called Reserves..where they are outside of the bounds of the majority of rules/regulations in Canada, but they also get a lot of funding from the government. Unfortunately it’s a much more complex and relatively terrible situation which leads to segregation, and a lot of poverty (since tribal chiefs get the lump of all the money, and can distribute it as they wish..usually to themselves.), but the point is – the country recognizes the fault of their national ancestors (I say national ancestors, since SO MANY Canadian people are not actually of English heritage) and try to compensate. Even though there is no comparison, if white fucktard would like to make a comparison, then perhaps he also agrees that China should grant Xinjiang people full ownership and governing over their traditional land, and pay them reparations? Hm………. I think everyone be happy with that, yah? Thanks, 白色, Good suggestion.

          • Probotector

            You’re an idiot. All nations have been conquered and repopulated over the centuries. Nowadays, people look at what the UN law is regarding who a country rightfully belongs to. If there is a dispute, it’s put to a vote. Frankly, your comment reads as a frustrated lashing out at Rick because he pwned you.

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            You are just as hypocrite as Rick. Tell the US to respect the UN law of the sea, tell Canada to respect the Kyoto protocol and tell Isreal to listen to the UN and stop the invansion of Gaza. After you have done all these, come back and speak about how everyone should follow the UN and rely on the UN to solve conflicts.

          • Probotector

            Please top deflecting and passing the buck. Those statements about other countries an the UN aren’t relevant.

            How is my comment hypocritical? You can’t tell a guy who was born in Canada to ‘go back to England’ just because historically Canada was a British dominion. He holds Canadian citizenship as a natural born citizen, therefore it’s his country. Your comment was arbitrary, irrelevant to the discussion, and only intended as trolling.

          • Alex Dương

            You can’t tell a guy who was born in Canada to ‘go back to England’ just because historically Canada was a British dominion.

            I agree. But then, we shouldn’t say “Chinese out of Tibet / Xinjiang” either just because China hasn’t always controlled those regions.

          • Probotector

            I never said that though, and I agree, for now. If the time ever comes when the people who live in those provinces get a referendum to determine their own destiny, and vote accordingly, then we can tell the Chinese to get out. Fat chance of that happening though.

          • Rick in China

            Like I alluded to in one of these posts, it’s a much more muddied situation _because_ of the immigration of Han to Xinjiang, which is why it’s not as easy of a situation to simply draw borders and give them a nation. I don’t think anyone said get the “Chinese out of Tibet / Xinjiang” – but rather, the argument would be to work with Xinjiang people to give them a land of their own, should that be what they vote for in a referendum..and if ethnic Chinese live there and that happened, they, too, would be of that new nation — or have an opportunity to leave should they choose to, whatever works. No ‘nation’ should be homogenous.

          • Alex Dương

            But as I said before, with the exception of a brief period in the 20th Century, since 1758, Xinjiang has always had a large Han and Hui presence. It’s true that the overwhelming majority of Han and Hui there now came fairly recently; I readily concede that. But it is not the case that from 1758 to, say, 1953, there were almost no Han and Hui in the region; in the early 1800s, Xinjiang already had a large (30%) Han minority.

            Is it true that before 1758, there weren’t many Han in the area? Absolutely. But at the same time, the Uyghurs weren’t in control of the region, nor were they the majority group; the Zunghars were. So really, the only time in the “modern” era that the situation was so simple as to “draw borders” and give “them” a country was in 1953, but that was right after the CCP took over mainland China. They certainly weren’t going to do that then.

          • Dr Sun

            you are wasting your time Alex, Rick will never admit he is wrong even once he’s been owned and his arguments ripped apart, as it was again in this thread.
            No doubt he was one of those who supported any separatists (ie, The IRA, PLA, Tamil Tigers) world wide pre- 9/11 But now only supports Xinjiang separatists as he refuses to even look at the regions history and acknowledge that the separatists are not the “indigenous people”, simply because of his hatred of the Chinese

            He has attempted to with others, a comparison with N.America and the Native Americans and made the “usual” excuses and pathetic platitudes of the conqueror. But I bet he’s never ever been on a reservation and witnessed the “absolute” poverty , desperation and racism/ segregation they experience and endure on a daily basis.

            You have to realise Ricks once defeated always just responds with, ” I done, your to stupid to talk with”

            The response of a defeated man.

            Do I think CPC policy is right, NO, they are repeating the mistakes made by pretty much every expanding Nation and its biting them in the arse.

            One can only hope that we wont one day see a photo as we did today of another “western ” separatist, racist mans son this time holding the severed heads of Han Chinese as Trophy’s.

            But to get back on track Alex ignore him, He’s not worth responding to, he’s so “out there” its a little frightening and so “right on ” that I can only conclude that he works for Fox News or something even more scary like the Christian monitor.

            you must realise he will close with something like:

            you’re too stupid to talk to I’m DONE WITH YOU”

          • Alex Dương

            The only point I really want to hammer home is that none of these disputes is, or ever was, “so simple.”

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            You are hypocrite because you apply double standards to China, why ask China to follow UN rules as the UN is the ultimate legitimate authority while many countries in the West don’t acturally give a fuck about the UN?
            I ask him to go back to England because of his own logic: conquering the land of people who “are ethnically, culturally and linguistically very different” is not right. And Canada was occupied by English and other europeans while the native people had been living there for tens of thousands of years. You are so hypocrite that you failed to see the hypocrisy.

          • Dr Sun

            how wells that working out in Crimea ?

          • Probotector

            Quite badly, meaning that the UN in practice doesn’t do shit.

          • Dr Sun

            so much for argument for leaving it up to the UN and international law then.

          • Probotector

            Still, most nations respect the UN’s principles that the people who live in a country have the right to determine that country’s destiny.

          • Dr Sun

            by nations I assume you mean their politicians and lawyers ? not the people

          • wookai

            All things said and done, I think the japanese need to be very very careful. The chinese army is training its warriors and it appears they are ready, the japanese must be quaking in their boots after watching this:

          • Alex Dương

            whom it belongs to at this time is China, who it arguably should belong
            to is perhaps the Xinjiang people who are ethnically, culturally, and
            linguistically very different..but were ‘conquered’.

            Despite your protestations to the contrary, you have in fact confirmed that while I may have “misquoted” and “paraphrased” your argument, I did not misrepresent it. You say Xinjiang “arguably should belong” to the conquered Xinjiang people. That is irredentism: you’re advocating present-day claims based on ethnicity as well as historical claims.

            Now, you say there are other differences at play: “In one case you have the argument that perhaps the people who still live
            on the land and were conquered deserve separatism and a country to call
            their own, in the other, you have no people involved and little more
            than maps and writings to lay claim.”

            Well, as I told you before and as you can verify, the Uyghurs were not in control of Xinjiang prior to its conquest by the Qing in 1758. The Zunghars were. How come nobody talks about them in the context of Xinjiang separatism / independence? Because Qianlong committed genocide against the Zunghars; for the most part, they don’t exist as a people anymore.

            While that does matter since you are, like it or not, arguing on the basis of irredentism, it remains that you know perfectly well that the problem with all irredentist arguments is that you can never know how far back to go. In the end, you are using the same principle China is using to justify its claims.

            Edit

            And to clarify, Suganuma does not say Diaoyu / Senkaku is Chinese. He merely lays out the facts, and the facts clearly show that the claim “China never controlled the islands” is false.

          • Rick in China

            Oh Alex. I suppose you don’t know how to read. I was not engaging in an argument about who Xinjiang belongs to here, I said it is an arguable position.

            You know the difference between admitting something as arguable and making the argument, yes? I don’t want to argue more about Xinjiang. I believe people should have the right to hold referendum and have self-determinism, and I don’t really give a shit what you think about either of these places…they have nothing to do with China’s growing reach and claim on regions.

            I digress: as China grows, so do the claims China has on various regions, and as specific regions have natural resources discovered within their boundaries, China continues to expand it’s claims. Do you want to discuss THIS point, or continue on your who owns Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia non-sequitur which has nothing to do with this thread, beyond that which you’ve made it about these issues?

          • Alex Dương

            I’m pointing out that your positions are inconsistent. You can try to rationalize them with “one’s inhabited; the other isn’t,” but that doesn’t change that you personally use irredentism to argue against Chinese claims to its border regions, and then you dismiss irredentism when arguing against Chinese claims to Diaoyu / Senkaku. So there is no non-sequitur; there is only my pointing out that you are being inconsistent.

            As for your point, I’d be happy to discuss it. I’ll start by saying I completely disagree with it. Chinese claims to the Paracel and Spratly Islands date back to the 1930s; that is, they predate the formation of the PRC. They began in a time when China was very weak; they are not new.

            Even by your incorrect view of the Diaoyu / Senkaku dispute, it isn’t new either. You would say that started in 1972.

            The dispute with India over Arunachal Pradesh / Aksai Chin is a legacy of a border agreement signed in 1914 that the Chinese never recognized and that led to war in 1962. Again, not a new dispute.

            And of course, let’s not forget the dispute with Taiwan. That’s a holdover of the Chinese Civil War from 1949. Once more, not new.

            I invite you to name a “new” dispute that China created alongside its growth or a dispute that China “enlarged.”

          • Rick in China

            There’s no point in arguing with you – you apparently make my position for me, perhaps you can argue with yourself, and insert my name in there where appropriate. It’s not worth my time, or effort, to continue. You win, Alex!

          • Alex Dương

            It’s not about “winning,” Rick. I simply want to point out that you haven’t given enough thought to these issues. Irredentism works for you, except when it doesn’t. That’s not critical thinking.

          • Rick in China

            No, Alex, you are creating my position for me – and creating non-equivalence between discussions on very different geopolitical issues. If you don’t understand the nuance between complex geopolitical and social issues, then there is no conversation to be had, hence, why I don’t have an interest in continuing. Speaking of critical thinking: not all issues can be painted with the same brush, Alex, so citing supposed inconsistencies between two very different issues accomplishes nothing.

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t think these disputes can be classified as either geopolitical or social.

          • Rick in China

            “I don’t think these disputes can be classified as either geopolitical or social.”

            *wow*. Therein lies the problem.

          • Alex Dương

            Seems to be that way. But I’d be happy to hear why you think Xinjiang et al. aren’t also geopolitical issues.

          • Rick in China

            Aren’t? I said they *are*. They are very different geopolitical issues. If you read my statement, the whole point was, these are two very *different* geopolitical/social issues, and as such, you can’t ignore the nuance and simply say “well you argue this for A, so why not B”.

          • Alex Dương

            OK, so you’re saying Xinjiang et al. (to clarify, the et al. refers to Tibet and to a much lesser degree, Inner Mongolia) are geopolitical issues. Correction noted. Why aren’t they also social issues?

            And since you’re drawing a dichotomy between geopolitical and social issues, if Xinjiang et al. are geopolitical issues, then it would seem to me that according to you, Diaoyu / Senkaku is a social issue. Why isn’t it also a geopolitical issue?

          • Rick in China

            You’re just being a facetious asshole now. Unless you seriously are that confused about my obvious phraseology. When did I say any of what you’ve responded with? You’re just being nonsensical.

          • Alex Dương

            You: “If you don’t understand the nuance between complex geopolitical and social issues, then there is no conversation to be had”

            Me: “I don’t think these disputes can be classified as either geopolitical or social.”

            You: “*wow*. Therein lies the problem.”

            You: “the whole point was, these are two very *different* geopolitical/social
            issues, and as such, you can’t ignore the nuance and simply say “well
            you argue this for A, so why not B”.”

            Direct quotes, so misquotes / paraphrasing don’t apply here. From your remarks, I conclude that you believe Diaoyu / Senkaku is different from Xinjiang et al. in that one of them is a “geopolitical” issue while the other is a “social” issue.

            You then clarified that Xinjiang et al. is the “geopolitical” issue: “Aren’t? I said they *are*.” That leaves Diaoyu / Senkaku as the “social” issue.

            Judging from your most recent reply, it would seem that was not what you intended. So what did you intend?

            Are you not arguing that geopolitical issues are distinct from social issues?

            Are you not arguing that Diaoyu / Senkaku is one of these two issues and Xinjiang et al. is the other?

            Did you not say that Xinjiang et al. was a geopolitical issue and given your distinction between geopolitical and social issues, would that not imply that Diaoyu / Senkaku is the “social” issue?

          • Kai

            Yikes, dude, you misread him there.

            If you don’t understand the nuance between complex geopolitical and social issues, then there is no conversation to be had

            Emphasis mine. He’s saying they’re all “geopolitical and social issues” but there are differences/nuances between them to explain his different positions on them. To be doubly clear, he’s not saying one is a geopolitical issue and the other is a social issue.

          • Alex Dương

            Oh, I see. He should have corrected my misunderstanding when I said, “I don’t think these disputes can be classified as either geopolitical or social.” I read his subsequent reply as implying that yes, you can classify these either/or.

          • Rick in China

            No, I read “I don’t think these disputes can be classified as either geopolitical or social.” as saying that they do not fit either classification, which is what it says.

          • Alex Dương

            Either/or doesn’t allow for both.

          • Rick in China

            Alright. So, we done?

          • Alex Dương

            With that part of the discussion, yes. See, we don’t always disagree xD

          • Rick in China

            *sighs* No, Alex, all wrong.

            Complex issues are often not classified as one or the other, but rather, have different aspects to them which are to be discussed and considered. I never implied one is geopolitical, and one is social – that’s retarded. I said they are complex geopolitical/social issues, the ‘/’ here implies that they *do not* have a strict classification, but rather, have aspects of both – although the Senkaku dispute has far less ‘social’ implication, I wager, than the Xinjiang or other issues which actually involve inhabitants of a region. I suppose reading is not your strong suit, or, reading in a way that suits your argumentative assault does.

            “Are you not arguing that Diaoyu / Senkaku is one of these two issues and Xinjiang et al. is the other?

            Did you not say that Xinjiang et al. was a geopolitical issue and given your distinction between geopolitical and social issues, would that not imply that Diaoyu / Senkaku is the “social” issue?” < This is all jibberish to me.

          • Alex Dương

            With the correction noted, the “nuance” here seems to be that Diaoyu / Senkaku is uninhabited whereas Xinjiang is still inhabited by “the (previously) conquered people,” thus their interests should be taken into account. Well, as I said previously and as you can verify, the Uyghurs are actually not “the conquered people.” “The conquered people” were the Zunghars, and you don’t hear about them in the news because they were wiped out in 1758.

            Thus, your irredentist argument in favor of Xinjiang separatism / independence would only apply to a people that no longer exist.

          • Rick in China

            There is more nuance than that, but that is probably the biggest obvious point, yes.

            I don’t care to argue about a non-existent people, they have no claim. My reason for supporting Xinjiang separatism is that I believe a people have the right to self-determinism and self-governing, and I feel for a people who are segregated and obviously not integrated into the nation to which they are forced to belong – unlike immigrants who move to a country and may face similar challenges, they’re not _able_ to leave or “return home”. That is their home, and they don’t have any control over it. They are continually made out to be a barbaric mongrel group with terrorist ties, and they’re essentially *stuck* where they are with no recourse. The reason why Xinjiang is especially challenging, now, is because Xinjiang as a region has had Han and other minorities flooded in, so simply “separating” Xinjiang and giving them their own government is not a very viable solution, either. If you consider this position to be irredentist, then I suppose on this issue, that’s what it is. I don’t see it that way.

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t care to argue about a non-existent people, they have no claim.

            The reason why Xinjiang is especially challenging, now, is because
            Xinjiang as a region has had Han and other minorities flooded in…

            The Zunghars are relevant because it was precisely their genocide that led Xinjiang to have a large population of Uyghurs today; many Uyghurs settled Xinjiang after 1758 in the aftermath of the Zunghar genocide. So you talk about Han and Hui migration “flooding” Xinjiang, but the Uyghurs did the same thing hundreds of years ago. This is again why I asked how long is long enough.

            This doesn’t invalidate Xinjiang Uyghurs’ right to be in Xinjiang. I am only pointing out that the story is not as simple and black-and-white as you think it is.

          • Rick in China

            People have been conquered throughout history. I don’t see the point in arguing about an extinct people and the wars they waged (or waged against them as it were) as it relates to the world’s current population and borders. That is why the question “how long is long enough” is irrelevant, because it can’t be answered – different situations call for different actions.

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t see the point in arguing about an extinct people and the wars
            they waged (or waged against them as it were) as it relates to the
            world’s current population and borders.

            Again, it matters because you are arguing from a perspective of the Uyghurs being native to Xinjiang and Xinjiang being flooded by Han and Hui. But in fact, many Uyghurs settled Xinjiang after the Zunghar genocide in 1758 in the same manner as Han and Hui who migrated after 1949.

          • Rick in China

            “because you are arguing from a perspective of the Uyghurs being native to Xinjiang”

            No. I never claim that Xinjiang people are *native* to Xinjiang. The whole concept of who is native to a land is a little bit silly, anyways – I suppose you’re native to a land when you’re born there. They occupied the land before it was conquered by Chinese, though, and now they have no territory to call their own. I have no disillusions that they were the first settlers on the land, or that they even existed when the land was first inhabited, that’s an entirely different discussion. I don’t really care about the ancient history as much as I care about the fact that the ethnic Xinjiang people who live there now are currently oppressed by what they deem a ‘foreign government’, and have no recourse to get ‘their’ country back.

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t really care about the ancient history as much as I care about the fact that the ethnic Xinjiang people who live there now are currently oppressed by what they deem a ‘foreign government’, and have no recourse to get ‘their’ country back.

            But when you say “get ‘their’ country back,” how is history not relevant? As I said, many Uyghurs today in Xinjiang are descended from Uyghurs who settled the area in the aftermath of the Zunghar genocide. The people who Xinjiang historically “belonged” to don’t exist anymore, and the people who you claim want their country “back” in fact only settled the region after the previous inhabitants were wiped out.

            Again, I’m not saying Uyghurs in Xinjiang don’t have a right to be there. They most certainly do. But it isn’t “their” country.

          • Rick in China

            Ok. We’re going in a circle. People who don’t exist any more can’t claim the rights to anything. People who occupy a region have some sort of claim to that region because they currently reside there. China didn’t kill all of the Xinjiang people, they subjugated them – had China slaughtered every single one of them.. I wouldn’t say Xinjiang people had any claim to the land, because they would not exist and would not live there. They do live there. They have lived there for a very long time – generations have been born on that land, and for generations they governed themselves and held self-determinism. They no longer do. What you suggest is that the Xinjiang people do not have the right to claim the region as their own country, because centuries ago their ancestors had conquered it through war, and China has done something similar to them now – so they have no more claim than the Zunghar people (or something to that effect). What I say is, since they still exist, since they still live there, since they are a subjugated people, they occupy and own the lands, they should have the right to referendum to decide if they choose to separate from the state which has subjugated them. I believe in self-determinism, and like Quebec in Canada, if _the people_ do not wish to be part of the state which they are currently part of, they should have the right to decide that rather than be _told_ how it’s going to be. That’s the difference between freedom and oppression, I suppose you’re on the side of pro-oppression?

          • 白色纯棉小裤裤

            Xinjiang was occupied by Qing Dynasty centries ago, Uyghur people did not occupy it – they moved in after Qing occupied it.
            To make an appropriate comparism, its like Britain occupied vancouver, and then alot of Chinese immigrants move in and become the ethnic majority of vancouver, and then they seek the independence of vancouver.

          • Rick in China

            You really don’t know shit, do you. Where do you think the Uyghur people “moved in” from? For fuck sakes, stop posting nonsense. They have existed in northern/northwestern China for what, more than 1500 years?

            Britain didn’t *occupy* Vancouver. The colonies *decided* to join a nation. This took decades, and it wasn’t forced. Canada grew out of a joining of colonies, at the decision of those colonies into larger governing bodies. Chinese, by contrast, are immigrants – you understand that immigrants have a nation and decide to move to *another* nation, right? Which nation did the Uyghur people move from, exactly? Your comparison is senseless, not only inappropriate, but not even close to a realistic situation independently of the juxtaposition with the Uyghur people.

            Your clueless comment didn’t deserve this long of a reply, but there you have it.

          • Alex Dương

            for generations they governed themselves and held self-determinism.

            I’m not against self-determination. I am against distorted history. Your narrative is one of Xinjiang people previously having a country of “their” own, previously having self-determination, and wanting it
            “back.”

            Xinjiang was not “always part of China”; as I’ve said, I date consistent Chinese control over the area back to 1758. Thus, it is true that for generations, people in the area governed themselves outside of direct Chinese control.

            But over what time period? Before 1758. After that, the area has been part of China, be it the Qing Empire, the ROC, or the PRC. And which Xinjiang people? As I’ve mentioned several times now, in fact the “Xinjiang people” who were conquered were not the Uyghurs but the Zunghars, who no longer exist.

            Dead men have no claims; I agree with you on that. But since many Uyghurs in Xinjiang today are descended from Uyghurs who settled the area in the aftermath of the Zunghar genocide, I don’t see why they especially have a claim to the area as “theirs” above and beyond Han and Hui who also settled the area.

            It’s true that more Uyghurs have stayed in the area since 1758 than Han and Hui, but it’s also true that with the exception of a brief period in the 20th Century, Xinjiang since 1758 always had a large Han and Hui presence.

            This is why I said the issue is not as simple as you made it out to be. None of China’s border disputes / separatist movements have such simple backgrounds and histories.

          • Probotector

            “I think that those matters would be best left up to international courts to settle dispute.”

            Or better yet, democratic vote.

    • Brido227

      The US southern ADIZ covers a swathe of the sovereign territory of Mexico while the Japanese covers the territorial waters of the Republic of Korea and what would be the territorial waters of the Republic of China if that were recognised as a sovereign state.

      I interpret that as ADIZs are normal practice and nothing to get excited about unless one is intent on hypocrisy.

  • Germandude

    Every time the Island issues is in the news I am wondering: What important thing must have happened that they dug this one out to distract the audience again?

    • Misiooo

      Genau! I think the guy xueliang1141234 above nailed it well.

  • LuoyangLaowai

    Time to get ready for another Anti Japanese Riot around China

    • MonkeyMouth

      i better head down to the 7eleven and stock up on Asahi

      • mr.wiener

        Try Orion next time.

        • MonkeyMouth

          orion? never heard of it….all my 7 has is asahi, kirin and suntory….i prefer kirin to them all, must say…

          • Rick in China

            Same here – 2 types of each brand. I drink Asahi every friday. Suntory is my least favorite of the 3, Kirin is OK but while it has a stronger flavour, I’m not a huge fan of that stronger flavour (for the first beer at least). The silver tinned Asahi super dry goes down smooth, 5%, nice bit of bite I’m used to, and only like 8.5?kuai a tin.

          • MonkeyMouth

            ya, the 5.5 ‘red’ asahi is tough. but hell ya, rick…its all better than this frikkin snow beer and qingdao crap.

          • Rick in China

            The Qingdao 4% is the best of the Chinese beers I find. Most local beer is like 3.3% 2.7% piss water though.. I typically keep my beer fridge stocked with import beers ordered from my favourite online food mart (waifood.com for Chengdu only though I think), they sell _all sorts_ of fun microbrew to try too. Currently I’m on a Paulaner kick.

          • MonkeyMouth

            i live one block from the Paulaner ‘brewhaus’ there at the Kempinsky, so word up to that! good stuff. I tend to stay away from Beernest, though. (sorry, all you non-chengduvians). And ya, Rick, I’ve met you numerous times, and know who you are…haha….but i wont reveal my identity…. unfair huh>?

          • Rick in China

            Na – I don’t mind, if I was trying to hide my identity I wouldn’t label myself “rick” and put my photo in profile..nothin’ to fear :D But as for beernest/etc, I’ve been once – but since our baby I’ve not been going to bars or clubs at all, just drink at home for the most part, occasionally cook up some ‘western’ bbq on the deck etc…

          • Insomnicide

            I wonder how many other CS posters have encountered each other in real life unknowingly…

          • mr.wiener

            One of the other posters here is a member of my rugby club.

          • MonkeyMouth

            you know that before or after? cS spying, and counterspying? you are a MOD now…

          • mr.wiener

            He contacted me on facebook and asked “is you the wiener?”

          • MonkeyMouth

            are you known as ‘The Weiner” in rugby? thats an odd name for such a close-contact sport, aint it? ;)

          • Germandude

            roflmao

          • mr.wiener

            I’m a sausage maker by trade.

          • Insomnicide

            How did you find out?

          • MonkeyMouth

            creepy, huh? how many of you besides Rick live in chengdu?

          • Ricardo_vx

            The “lao qing dao” is very good indeed.

          • Teacher in China

            Yeah, Paulaner is nice. Even though we’re a small town, we have a nice little selection of German beers available, for only like 12 kuai for a tall boy. Can ever sometimes get Corona or canned Guiness for more or less the same price. My go to beer though is “Old 5 Star”, a Beijing one. 4% and cheap :)

          • Teacher in China

            Snow has got to be the worst of the bunch. Qingdao isn’t terrible, just bland, and actually the bottled “Qingdao Draft” beer is not bad. Up here in Dongbei, Ginsber is popular, and it’s good even if it doesn’t have a strong taste. We also get a canned “Old 5 Star” beer that I quite like – 4% which is pretty high for a Chinese beer.

            Was recently Dandong a few days ago, and their local beer, Yalu River, was excellent. Tried lots of good beer at the Dalian beer festival, too, some of which was Chinese (but not readily available on the market, unfortunately).

          • Ricardo_vx

            Have seen and tried that in HK, nice when ice cold, very smooth. Think pricewise it is about the same…although you can get offers where if you buy two it’s a bit cheaper, the 7-11 in macau sucks by comparison, only Haizhu (Zhuhai beer) in cans, and I don’t really rate that.

          • David

            Kirin is the best.

          • vincent_t

            no way, try the 原浆 from tsingtao if you ever visit the Tsingtao city. It is fresh from the brewery and i think the beer skip some final processes, it is not strong but man it is so good that I drank it for breakfast!

          • hess

            Amen to that

        • Butsu

          Try Yebisu or dunno if you can get a hold of microbrewed Japanese beer but Hitachino has some good ones.

  • vincent_t

    I have a feeling this is another campaign launched by the current Chinese leadership to consolidate his power and gaining his popularity. For the pass couple of weeks, gosh there are a lot of articles circulating in my wechat promoting the support of CCP and Xi. Some of the articles go like how people in Egypt, Syria fought for the so called democracy and ended up the nations in chaos and anarchy, China must avoid this and etc. Feel like a brainwashing campaign is on going.

    • Ben

      Yea, I also saw quite a few about Ukraine a few months ago.

    • Rick in China

      Anti-japanese stuff isn’t really how he consolidates his power. He consolidates his power by removing his rivals and shoring up control of all domestic security forces and the like. The public is already relatively ‘on his side’, and these type of stunts are typically used as a means to distract the public from other news stories which are creating uproars. Like, perhaps, the new restriction to prevent ANYONE but registered/authorized news agencies from posting or forwarding any political news story, and have to agree to that in order to use their social media accounts, and as per usual use their real ID card to register. THAT is bad news. THAT needs distraction.

    • The scary thing I’ve been asking is, what is Xi’s endgame? Already, the amount of press (as measured by total front page articles and photo appearances) of Xi has already eclipsed that of Mao. And that’s in less than 4 years of chairmanship. Right now Xi has been busy targeting princelings, using Wang Qishan and his Central Party Disciplinary Committee to bring down at first, Bo Xilai and associates, and now ZHou Yongkang and associates. There is also an ideological cleansing happening, as seen in the booting out of intellectuals from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and other state-affiliated think-tanks, of those academics who are seen to have been “polluted” by “non-Chinese ideals of human rights, universal values, Constitutionalism, and the separation of party and the military.”

      When Xi finally consolidates power, the rest of East Asia has to be very concerned. Xi had to choose sides, as he couldn’t attack everyone at the same time. He chose the military, to go up against the leftists, the princelings, the moderates. As a quid pro quo, what the military wants, the military gets. That of course means bigger weapons, more aircraft, and a say in foreign policy, however implicit. That is why you’ve been hearing about guys like Gen. Liu Yuan in state media, whereas during the time of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, military men were virtually unheard of in mainstream Chinese media. And what are these military hawks saying? That China has been too soft in territorial disputes, that it has to “teach countries like the Philippines and Vietnam a lesson” by waging low-intensity conflicts (ie., a brief war like that with Vietnam over the Paracels that would kill a few soldiers, but not an all-out war). By now, these guys are very confident that the US would not intervene in LIC’s—which might very well be a terrible miscalculation, as we all know what can happen when an “accident” like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, happens.

  • SongYii

    This probably happens every week.

  • MonkeyMouth

    people never grow up. how is this different than ‘sandbox politics’ when we were boys? schoolyard jostling?

    • Dannisi

      The only difference between men and boys is the size of their toys

  • Rick in China

    I hate the ‘factual “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone” I think it should be more accurately claimed as “Self-Proclaimed East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone, also known to the rest of the world, as international airspace.”

    • David

      Absolutely. Just because it is called the ‘South China Sea’ does not mean China owns it.

      • Chaz

        West Philippines Sea, you mean?

        • Dr Sun

          east vietnam sea you mean ?

          • Guest

            Northwest US Guam Sea.

      • Insomnicide

        It’s actually called Southern Sea in Chinese. Only English speaking people and Japanese refer to it as South China sea.

        • ptptp

          A New York minute is just a minute in NY.

      • SongYii

        The Atlantic used to be called the Ocean Sea.

        Its like Mr. and Mrs. Human naming their child Person.

      • China actually only calls it “nan hai,” or “south seas.” It’s other countries that added the “China” to it. It sounds like semantics, but in the context of regional politics, naming places carries significance (ex., Diaoyutai vs Senkakus)

        • Bob

          Chinese: Diàoyú Dǎo – 钓鱼岛
          Japanese: Uotsuri-shima – 魚釣島

          Chinese named this island first, and looks like the Japanese just swapped two characters and called it their own in 1895.

          • Alex Dương

            The character swap is because of Japanese grammar. But otherwise, you are right that this is NOT a coincidence: Japanese cartographers / geographers had to use Chinese sources when they researched the islands, and the Chinese sources consistently referred to the islands as 釣魚.

          • Rutim

            Source?

          • Alex Dương
          • guizi

            釣魚=verb+object
            魚釣=object+verb

            In Chinese grammar, only the former is allowed. But Japanese grammar allows the both.

            There are some examples.
            防砂林、砂防林、防風、風防
            In Japanese, they are all correct terms. But in Chinese, object+verb structure is not allowed.

            So, if there existed Chinese name of 釣魚 first, Japanese side did not have to change the name. On the other hand, if 魚釣 was the first-existed name, the Chinese side had to change the name.

            I thought this is common knowledge among those who study Chinese language.

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t see how Japanese grammar is “common knowledge” among those who study the Chinese language. In any case, 釣魚 came first. This is well documented by Suganuma Unryu.

          • guizi

            Suginuma Unryu? Never heard of such name. But I found these.
            https://twitter.com/unryusuganuma
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unryu_Suganuma

            It seems that he is very one-sided despite he teaches at universities.

          • Alex Dương

            Facts you don’t agree with are always one-sided, no?

          • guizi

            Oh, read his comments. He uses lots of provocative words. He is clearly a person who is too one-sided.

          • Alex Dương

            No, you call him one-sided because he actually presents both sides of the story.

          • guizi

            BTW, does not the book by Suganuma tell about the rules of word orders in Japanese and Chinese, as I wrote above? Or did he skip the issue?

            This word order of 釣魚 and 魚釣 has been my question since I got interested in this territorial issue.

            If you know the two languages, the logical answer is that 魚釣 existed first. Yeah, of course there are many other possibilities. But I just hate Bob above who without any brain work blames Japan. Its stupid.

          • Alex Dương

            I learned about it from him. So, no, he did not skip the issue. And I don’t see how “the logical answer” is that 魚釣 came first. Such “logic” presumes that Japan was the first to document the islands after 1895. Suganuma presents the facts in the book I linked to, and the facts clearly show that the Chinese had documented the islands far, far, far earlier, and the Japanese used Chinese sources.

          • guizi

            You just repeat it is in the book. I think it is not a nice argument, since lots of people here dont have access to the book. But anyway I will go find his book if I had time.

          • Alex Dương

            You and Rutim asked for a source; I gave you a source. It is not my problem if you cannot access it, say, from a local library. Nonetheless, there is a limited preview available on Google Books. I took a screenshot of the relevant page (96).

          • Rick in China

            You’re right about this:

            “So, if there existed Chinese name of 釣魚 first, Japanese side did not have to change the name. On the other hand, if 魚釣 was the first-existed name, the Chinese side had to change the name.”

            But what you’re missing is, after the first sentence, the words: “but they could have.” I don’t trust a lot of the supposed evidence as being fully accurate of the past of the area, nor sufficiently claiming any control or ownership (having something on a map that is left unhabited, not built upon, no flag stamped into the ground, etc… just a rock in the distant ocean someone from your country saw once is NOT sufficient evidence of control and ownership to me.) However, from a logic perspective, since that’s what the argument is – there is one fault with yours. There’s no way to show what came first by “they didn’t *have* to”…because they could have, for any number of reasons, changed it’s order.

          • Guest

            I believe you are wrong about this. The ming nam dialect which is the original Han language is structured S+O+V but changes over to S+V+O when combined with mandarin. A lot of older Chinese poetry was written with ming nam dialect, which is why they don’t rhyme too well in mandarin and some of the sentence structure appears unusual.

          • guizi

            >>The character swap is because of Japanese grammar.
            This is strange. Is this from the book?

            As I wrote, the Japanese side does not have to change the word order.

          • Alex Dương

            I attach the same image I attached in another reply to you. What I remember from reading the book is a paragraph from page 96.

          • guizi

            Thanks. I read it.

            So, Mr. Suganuma said that reversing the characters is due to the Japanese grammar.

            Sorry, No. I think he did not think well, or contacted language teachers.

            Japanese language has lots of terms which is in order of Chinese language. Really lots of them. Ex. 登山、献花、殺人

          • Alex Dương

            Japanese language has lots of terms which is in order of Chinese language.

            I’d guess most, if not all, of them were directly borrowed from Chinese. That is what happened with 釣魚. 釣魚 was the original; 魚釣 is the modification.

          • guizi

            That is just your guess.

            On the other hand, I have reason to support my idea of why chinese side changed the term from the japanese name.

          • Alex Dương

            No, it is not “just my guess.” It is a fact. I attach a screenshot of page 95 of Suganuma’s book. Since the Ming era, the Chinese have always referred to the islands as 釣魚. 魚釣 is not the original name.

            I’d like to hear your “reason” and the evidence you have for it.

          • guizi

            First you said it is due to Japanese grammar, and I attacked it, and I think the Japanese-grammar argument now becomes completely baseless.

            Now, you defend your argument using different perspective.

          • Alex Dương

            It is due to Japanese grammar. Can you read 釣魚 in Japanese as “chougyo” (on’yomi)? Sure. But it doesn’t mean anything inherently, since the equivalent phrase in Japanese is 魚釣 with a “ri” at the end (i.e. sakana tsuri, as Suganuma pointed out). So, it is not baseless at all. Your “attack” was nothing but pointing out that the Japanese language contains some phrases in Chinese order, which were themselves directly borrowed from Chinese. Well, that was the case with 魚釣 (borrowing) and 釣魚 (original).

            You tell me that’s just a “guess.” It isn’t, and I did not use a “different perspective.” I use a different piece of evidence to support the same argument: the Chinese named the islands first, and they named them 釣魚. The Japanese changed it to 魚釣.

            You have yet to give your “reasons.” I’d like to hear them.

          • guizi

            Sorry I dont understand at all.

            釣魚 does not have to change to 釣魚 in Japanese.

            As 登山、殺人、献花 did not change from Chinese.

            Actually, terms with object+verb order are mostly Japanese original terms, not borrow words from china then changed to such order. I personally dont know any word which is originally Chinese but becomes Japanese after swapping characters.

          • Alex Dương

            釣魚 does not have to change to 釣魚 in Japanese.

            Do you say 魚釣り or 釣り魚?

            Actually, terms with object+verb order are mostly Japanese original terms, not borrow words from china then changed to such order.

            If they were borrowed from Chinese, why would they have to be “changed” to OV order?

          • guizi

            I think you dont speak Japanese. Your argument about Japanese is just strange. “Ri” at the end means nothing.

            Similar to 魚釣り、釣り魚 argument, we can have 山登り、登山argument.

            If we follow your argument, Japanese language should use 山登. But today we have only 登山靴、登山道、登山者, no 山登.

            >>If they were borrowed from Chinese, why would they have to be “changed” to OV order?

            Actually, borrowed words are usually used in original Chinese order. I dont know any words that are changed from chinese. If 魚釣 is actually changed word as you said, it would be a rare one.

          • Alex Dương

            You didn’t answer my question. Do you say 魚釣り or 釣り魚? If I look up the word “fishing” in an English-Japanese dictionary, am I going to get 魚釣り or 釣り魚?

          • guizi

            Alex,

            I dont know how to say it, but this argument is meaningless. You already lost. This is just Mr. Suganuma’s carelessness. You dont have to defend him to such degree.

            魚釣り everyday word. 1,080,000 hits
            釣り魚 used very rarely, sounds rather formal, 241,000 hits

          • Alex Dương

            You’re right; it is meaningless. Setting aside that one of these two words is used nearly five times as often as the other, you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to demonstrate that “魚釣” is the original name of the islands, and you admitted you have no evidence. So we are done here.

          • guizi

            What a good debater you are with such a bad words.

            I always hope to communicate with Chinese people friendly and with sincerity. But it is difficult. if you are a moderator, you should be careful about your wordings, otherwise the forum becomes trash.

          • Alex Dương

            What’s there to debate? You admitted you have no evidence:

            Yes, Japan side does not have historical record. But historical records do not record everything.

            It was already pretty bad that the best you could say was “historical records do not record everything”; now you accuse me of using “bad words.”

            As for sincerity, I believe you believe the original name of the islands was (and thus, according to you, still is) 魚釣. But it remains that you have no evidence to support this belief. Your “logical reasoning” is in fact extremely illogical, as to the extent that the Japanese language is more “flexible” than Chinese in terms of word order, it does not provide any evidence in the slightest that 魚釣 is the original. Rather, you’re just assuming that it is and then “reasoning” that if the Chinese don’t call it 魚釣, then they “must” have changed it.

            Edit

            As an aside, if you really think you’re sincere, maybe you shouldn’t call yourself 鬼子.

          • guizi

            My reasoning is more reasonable than Mr. Suganumas. Much much reasonable.

            Why J-side have to change the term when there is no need to do so. But C-side have the reason to change, as its grammar requires.

            I think my idea is very simple.

          • Alex Dương

            Your “reasoning” is not reasoning at all. Rather, you are just hiding that you are assuming that the original name is 魚釣, and then “concluding” that since the Chinese call it 釣魚, they must have changed the name. Ridiculous.

            Suganuma presents the facts. You admit you have no facts to support your claim. As Suganuma shows, since the Ming period, the Chinese have always referred to the islands as 釣魚, never as 魚釣. Moreover, in a 1785 map, Hayashi Shihei used the Chinese name of the islands directly and referred to them as 釣魚, not as 魚釣 or as 尖閣.

            Hayashi Shihei’s map

          • guizi

            Actually, I am talking about grammar alone. And from the viewpoint of grammar, I am correct, Mr, Suganuma is not.

            The term in Hayashi Shihei map is 釣魚? Actually it was in Ryukyu, not Japan. And they are inhabitant islands. If they were written with names that is more than great. I think Mr, Hayashi used Ming’s book rather than Ryukyu’s book, which is understandable. And it seems that he just copied the map of ming map.

          • Alex Dương

            I think Mr, Hayashi used Ming’s book rather than Ryukyu’s book, which
            is understandable. And it seems that he just copied the map of ming map.

            Then you admit that the Ming called the islands 釣魚, not 魚釣. So your claim that it was the Chinese who changed the name is wrong.

          • guizi

            Actually, I dont know the original name, and I dont believe anything. I am just using logic.

          • Alex Dương

            You aren’t using logic at all. Your “reasoning” begins with a hidden assumption: the original name of the islands is 魚釣. Since the Chinese call them 釣魚, the Chinese must have changed the name of the islands since “they have to.”

            This is circular: you conclude that the original name of the islands is 魚釣 based on an assumption that the original name of the islands is 魚釣.

          • guizi

            My reason is already written several times. It is Japanese grammar. Japan does not have to change the name, on the other hand china has to change the name.

            Yes, Japan side does not have historical record. But historical records do not record everything.

          • Alex Dương

            Japan does not have to change the name, on the other hand china has to change the name.

            How is this evidence that the original name of the islands is 魚釣? It’s not, and you admit that 東京 does not have history on its side: “Yes, Japan side does not have historical record.”

            All you can say is that history is incomplete. Wow. Great argument. I’ll stick with the facts that Suganuma Unryu presented, arigato gozaimasu.

          • lacompacida

            It is not Diàoyú Dǎo. It is Senkaku Islands.

          • Alex Dương

            釣魚 is the original, Chinese name for the islands. 尖閣 is a distortion of 尖塔, which is Japanese for “Pinnacle.” Pinnacle is the name the British gave the islands. The Japanese used the British name for the islands, but the Chinese had documented the islands in far greater detail much earlier. That is why the largest of the islands is called 魚釣; Japanese cartographers and geographers relied upon Chinese sources.

          • Brian227

            The whole root cause of the trouble is that the issue of ownership has never been subjected to a ruling under international law. This allows numerous disputes to rumble on bilaterally and numerous players to insert themselves into the game with a territorial claim in the hope picking up something from the pot.

            You can argue – as JGov regularly does in relation to the Diaoyu/Diaoyutai/Senkaku question – that possession is nine-tenths of the law; or you can argue – as JGov regularly does in relation to Dokdo/Takeshima and Sakhalin/Karafuto – that mere possession is no grounds for claiming sovereignty in the face of a historic competing claim,

          • guizi

            Any source?

            Please read my comment below. and give me your source other than looks like.

      • David

        I find it funny that like 8 people felt they had to each tell me what it is called in Chinese (which I am not writing in) instead of talking about the point that was actually made. But thank you for the Chinese language lesson. Are you now going to tell me it is not called the ‘East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone’ because those are English words and I assume the Chinese call it something else. Not trying to be rude but. come on.

      • lacompacida

        It is not South China Sea. It is West Filipino Sea. And it is not East China Sea. It is West Sea of Japan.

        • Guest

          North Australia Pond.

  • David

    I wonder how aware the average Chinese netizen is about the reality of the Chinese ADZ? That no other country recognizes it.

    • Insomnicide

      No country recognizes any ADIZ. The establishment of ADIZs are not bound by any international law or treaty and is not regulated by any international authority like the UN.

    • donscarletti

      I’m pretty sure Japan is actually inside the ADZ.

      • lacompacida

        Actually PLA was careful enough not even to include Senkaku Islands in it.

        • Alex Dương

          If that were the case, then Japan would have no cause for complaint. Use your brain.

    • lacompacida

      Oh yeah, every country recognize it, saying yes, PLA did announceit. It is just the rules about reporting that they ignore, since nothing happens if you just send your fighters in.

      • David

        I am not aware of one country that recognizes Chines right to control that air space. The United States sends its fighters and navy through it all the time.

  • b duck

    People already lose interest in anti-japan.

    • lacompacida

      I think PRC people should keep it up to keep us entertained. Love to see them trashing Japanese brand cars and TV, and watches, and turned around to buy some more new ones.

  • MonkeyMouth

    totally unrelated, but type ‘敏感词’ into http://www.bing.com/translator/ and tell me what you get…..

    • Kai

      “Sensitive word”

      • MonkeyMouth

        i get ‘Fernando Torres’. no lie, and i’ve done it twice….anyone else get Torres? weeeeird…

        • Kai

          Oh, dude, my bad, I was using cn.bing.com/dict, not bing.com/translator. I got “Fernando Torres” on that as well. Yeah, that’s weird.

    • lacompacida

      I got Xi, Jiang, Hu, Zhou, Wen… They are all unspeakable.

  • Insomnicide

    There seems to be no such thing as bilateral talks in East Asia.

    • lacompacida

      PRC insists on bilateral talks, and other countries want multi-lateral talks. PRC likes to divide and conquer.

      • Zhegezhege

        PRC: we want bilateral talks with our smaller neighbours
        Small neighbours: well, we aren’t willing to do that because that is obviously to your advantage due to your greater power. So we’ll talk, but we are also interested in working together to co-ordinate strategy so as to not be overwhelmed
        PRC: we demand bilateral talks! Who put you up to this? Was it the Americans? Was it Japan?
        Small neighbours: like we say, we-
        PRC: You should know that it is in your interest to work with us! Asia for the Asians!
        Small neighbours – that’s what Imperial Japan said
        PRC: how DARE you accuse of anything? You should know better than to resist us. You know we will win in the end, so you should be intelligent and realise that you should want to keep us happy.

        …later that day…

        Smaller neighbours: hey, America and Japan
        USA: Yes?
        Japan: Yes?
        Smaller neighbours: China is being a real dick and we think we’ll need your help to stand up to them.

      • Insomnicide

        No different than their American counterparts who have already done a good job dividing up Asia.

  • བོད་

    I don’t think there is going to be a war. Small Japan cannot last 50 seconds against China if it occured.

    • IsurvivedChina

      The last thing we need is more war!

    • lacompacida

      Just like the 1895 war.. It wasn’t 50 seconds. 50 minutes or so.

  • Free G (just left the Fiefdom)

    Fuck the Chinese and their BS ‘air zone’. Fuck the useless Chims and watch Japan fuck them over hard when the time comes. I will be gleefully flying a Japanese flag and shitting on any Chim within ‘shitting’ space. FUCK THE CHIMS and their useless-ass leader Brainless!!

    • SongYii

      Boooooooooooo

    • b duck

      ???

    • woolv

      ‘useless-ass leader Brainless’

      you sound very American.

      • Free G (just left the Fiefdom)

        And, well, I’m not. I’m South African.

    • mr.wiener

      Sorry, I think you mistook this site for the “Shanghaiist”.

      • Free G (just left the Fiefdom)

        Sorry, I think you forgot I have freedom of speech. And I am welcome to post wherever I want. If the mods don’t approve they can remove my posts.

        Other than that I will post what I think/feel. Had enough of China’s BS, and want them downsized.

        Agree/disagree.

        • Harold Janson

          no such thing as “freedom of speech”, especially on a non-government venue. sorry dipshit.

          • Free G (just left the Fiefdom)

            No need to apologize Harry.

            Here’s a little present for you – enjoy!

          • Probotector

            Why does believing in freedom of speech make him a dipshit?

        • mr.wiener

          Freedom of speech yes. Posting flamebait? No. This is a gentle reminder. Lets not take it up to the next level.

          • Free G (just left the Fiefdom)

            What would that be Mr Wiener.. Am I not free to say what I feel?

          • Probotector

            CS likes to employ thought police. It seems that in their quest to prove that western and Chinese internet users “aren’t so different after all”, they failed to realise that some of us would actually be critical of China sometimes, just as they Chinese are sometimes critical of us. In any case, you shouldn’t drop the word ‘chim’ in there. Not sure exactly what it means, but it’s probably an epithet similar to ‘chink’ so it’s going to affect your credibility.

          • Kai

            Christ, you’re free to think whatever you want, just like the Chinese netizens. Others are free to disagree and criticize what you think, just like the Chinese netizens. Accusing those who disagree with and criticize you for what you think of being the “thought police” just suggests you’re indignant that others dared disagree with you but have nothing with which to refute their disagreement.

          • Probotector

            Is that what you say whenever anyone challenges your attitude on fairness?

          • Kai

            No, it’s what I say when people feign persecution and victimhood because others have the audacity to disagree with them and then actually go on to articulate why they disagree.

            I challenge you on your attitude of fairness by articulating how your remarks are objectionable and questionable. I also challenge you on your attitude of fairness by pointiing to and linking to your history of comments evidencing a pattern of unfair, irrational, and unreasonable generalizations suggesting prejudice.

            You, on the other hand, challenge my “attitude on fairness” without going on to provide any evidence of me being unfair. Disagreeing with you when you happen to be white doesn’t make me unfair against white people. It just means you’re jumping to conclusions. It’s like the obnoxious Chinese netizens who think foreign criticism against China is automatically racial bias. You consistently make the same bullshit accusations of the very people you hate and criticize.

          • Probotector

            Then ban me then you cowardly twat, and stop complaining.

          • Free G

            Chim refers to Chimatrons, which is what I call the mainland Chinese. Mildy derogatory, but harmless.

            After 10 years I still find the term ‘laowai’ derogatory.

            But it’s all good. I left China when the doc told me I had high blood pressure and was close to a heart attack. Best thing I ever did.

          • Alex Dương

            they failed to realise that some of us would actually be critical of China sometimes, just as they Chinese are sometimes critical of us.

            That would be another example confirming that we aren’t so different after all, no?

          • Probotector

            Yes, so what?

          • Alex Dương

            In context, it seems to me like you’re saying we are trying too hard to show that we aren’t so different when we are. But the example you gave showed similarity, not difference.

          • Probotector

            No I wasn’t. I was trying to say that in such an endeavour to prove that we’re all alike, you didn’t realise that means we’re alike in negative ways as well.

          • Alex Dương

            I strongly disagree. Some of the most obvious instances of similarities involve “negative ways” (e.g. ultranationalism, racism / prejudice, etc.). I’m speaking for myself, but I certainly would not say that chinaSMACK only tries to focus on “positive” similarities.

          • Probotector

            Fine

          • Insomnicide

            If they really wanted to use thought police tactics, they would have censored or deleted your comments already.

            Yes, sometimes they do argue that maybe Chinese people aren’t so different from others. You know, Chinese people might actually be human beings. You can disagree all you like, but don’t act shocked when people criticize your comments. After all, wouldn’t that be them exercising right and freedom of speech?

          • Probotector

            I never said Chinese aren’t human beings, and I never criticised the mission of CS trying to prove that Chinese and the rest of us are alike. I just said that those who run CS didn’t seem to realise that we’d also act alike in our mutual criticism and animosity that would inevitably arise sometimes. As some would say, you’re making a straw man argument.

            I’m not shocked when people criticise my comments, I just don’t like it when people make an argument out of nothing, like you just did.

            CS mods do delete people’s comments that they don’t approve of.

          • Kai

            You criticized cS for making you make the remarks you do.

            How did we NOT realize that some cS commenters would inevitably act alike in “mutual criticism and animosity”? Of course we realized it:

            Today, chinaSMACK’s staff and contributors include both Chinese and non-Chinese individuals of different backgrounds, both in and outside of mainland China, who share a common passion for what Chinese internet culture can reveal about Chinese society today, and the belief that what is revealed ultimately shows that Chinese people and “foreigners” are not so different after all.

            When I point out that you behave just like some obnoxious Chinese netizens, it isn’t me suddenly realizing some cS commenters do; it is me asking if you personally want to be like those Chinese netizens. Similarly, when I point out how you are similar to whuddyasack, someone you often rightfully criticize, I’m asking you if you really want to be like him. In addition to expressing my disagreement with your beliefs and behavior, I’m holding up a mirror to you. Do you really like what you see? Is this really how you want to look? Like those obnoxious Chinese netizens? Like whuddyasack?

            I’m not shocked when people criticise my comments, I just don’t like it when people make an argument out of nothing, like you just did.

            Obviously others don’t think it is “nothing”.

            CS mods do delete people’s comments that they don’t approve of.

            Wrong, we do not delete comments we “don’t approve of”; we delete comments that violate our comment policy. I often don’t approve of your comments, which is why I express disagreement with them. I don’t delete them. Neither do the other mods, and I regularly check what they are deleting. I wish you would stop with these false accusations.

          • Probotector

            This is just an internet forum, let it go.

          • Alex Dương

            Even so, it’s reasonable to expect a baseline of responsibility. If you make these types of accusations, you should expect a response.

          • Probotector

            Well, you know Kai likes to ramble on and on, it seems like he takes it too seriously.

          • Kai

            Then you let it go. Every time you snidely talk shit about me, the mods, or this site including Fauna, I feel obligated to defend us by calling you out on your bullshit. All of the crap accusations you have slung at us time and time again boil down to you resenting the fact that I or others dared articulate our disagreements with notions you hold dear, or offensive speech you feel somehow entitled to indulge in without others taking issue. If you don’t want me defending myself, the mods, or this site against you, then stop posting petty insults. Either have the backbone to substantiate your accusations or concede that you indulged in childish name-calling.

            Edit: You can’t stop, can you?

          • Probotector

            Ban me then. Get on with it already, I’m actually daring you to put your money where your mouth is, and make it stick, forever. I know my existence on CS is a thorn in your side, you obviously hate me, and I make you so angry, so do it.

          • Kai

            1. Why would banning you be putting my money where my mouth is?

            2. We don’t ban people we “obviously hate” and whom make us “so angry”. We only ban people for serious violations of our comment policy.

            3. So if you want me to ban you, tell me what part of the comment policy you believe you’ve violated that warrants a ban.

            4. Otherwise, stop “daring” me to ban you as if that would somehow vindicate you. What part of “if you stop being a petty child to us, we won’t have to defend ourselves against you” do you not understand? If you don’t like me calling you on your bullshit, then stop with the bullshit. You are picking fights and getting angry that others won’t allow you to walk all over them.

          • mr.wiener

            You are free to say what you want, but there has to be limits to that freedom.
            Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior does.

      • Free G (just left the Fiefdom)

        Disqus be fucking things up.

  • chucky3176
    • Alex Dương

      Not surprising. Take a look at the comments here: you’ll find several (many?) Western expats in China thinking China is a hostile, crazy country. I will only say that being able to parrot what the Japanese Government claims verbatim isn’t critical thinking.

      • lacompacida

        And parrot what the PRC government claims verbatim is critical thinking.

        • Alex Dương

          Of course not.

    • lacompacida

      And they are not alone.

  • Dr Sun

    I don’t think the Chinese armed forces should engage the Japanese for a number of reasons;
    The Japanese are a well equipped,highly trained, professional fighting force.
    The Chinese are in contrast a terribly trained, poorly led armed force, run by corrupt politicians and a officer corps that only got their jobs through they’re families “guanxi”.a recipe for repeating the military disasters of the past.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      Go ask for a Pentagon report on the PLA. You will be so enlightened, much like all those dumb Americans.

      • Dr Sun

        right just like their “Public reports” since the 1950’s to date (on Cuba, the NVA,North Korean army,Iraqi, Syria, Lybia ,Taliban, Alqueda ,ISIS, Afghanistan) have all been spot on lol.
        If you want to believe the NSA/ CIA/DOD, then all I can say is Grow the fuck up !

        • David

          Usually what happens is the grassroots analysis is correct and once the reports hit the upper management level and political appointee level they get changed for reasons that have nothing to do with accuracy. A great example is the “Bay of Pigs”. Most actual analysts knew it was going to be a goatfuck from the start but for political reasons the go ahead was given by President Kennedy and it ended just how it was predicted. Sometimes the people that decision makers rely on have their own interests and do not give good advice even when it is available. Another example is the fall of the Soviet Union which many low level Soviet experts had predicted for several years, bu it ‘surprised the hell out of’ the political appointees running the CIA.

          • lacompacida

            Before any conquest, there are always at least two predictions: victory and failure. Whatever comes past will make at least one prediction correct. In the case of Bay of Pigs, the prediction of failure was right. There were prediction that US would fall to Japan when Pearl started too. I personally think US Congress should have believed the failure prediction.

          • David

            Except that wile our battleship fleet was seriously hurt our air craft carriers were not in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack. THAT would have been crippling. In addition Japan did not follow up on its attack (not to criticize the admirals in charge). They really did need to get the fleet back to finish conquering and securing all the islands in the western pacific. The strike on PH was thought to keep the Americans out of the war not give Roosevelt a reason to enter it. Bad political calculations by the Japanese military.,

          • Alex Dương

            Bad political calculations by the Japanese military.

            In hindsight, it was a very bad decision, but in context, I think they were desperate and felt they had no choice. By December 7, 1941, they’d been stuck in China for almost 4.5 years and resources were running low. They “had to” conquer Southeast Asia and as you said, gambled that striking Pearl Harbor would deter the U.S. from intervening in Southeast Asia.

      • chucky3176

        There’s doubt China can match Japan on Air and on Sea. This is not an infantry war, it will be battles with jet fighters and battle ships. I doubt China’s domestic and Russian made fighters and ships can match the US made fighters and ships from Japan. Nuclear option for China is nil. But China has the third option of escalating the conflict to the economic arena. Economics is a bit more unclear. China can choose to boycott Japan by banning Japanese imports and nationalizing/banning Japanese factories in China and banning export of rare earth to Japan. But then Japan could do the same to Chinese imports, ban investments in China, and ban high tech exports to China – critical components and machines needed for Chinese goods. In my mind, it’s unclear who will win the economic war. That one is up in the air.

        • lacompacida

          Japan is too close to PRC to need warships for this fight. Fighter/Bombers will be used to destroy radar installations, then SAM launchers, mobile and stationary, and airports. Next go the long range missile launchers, mobile and stationary. War over. Some naval facilities may be destroyed too. Naval forces will only be used to block PLAN subs from leaving port. PRC surface naval forces will be blocked, but not rigorously. They are considered harmless.

        • Zhegezhege

          Both sides lose.
          That’s why neither side wants it and it is extremely unlikely that it will actually happen.
          The PRC is just attempting to use the nationalist/fascist impulses within the population that it itself has fostered as a bargaining chip and means of scoring political points and doesn’t seem to accept that this strategy always backfires eventually.
          But, as I’ve written before, the CCP is ‘using up’ China to make itself rich in the short term and isn’t thinking that far ahead.

      • lacompacida

        And read China Daily on Japanese SDF and you will know how poorly equipped the SDF is, like the most intelligent PRC people, including top PLA generals, and Chairman Xi.

        • 白色纯棉小裤裤

          In the 2011 tsunami 18 F2 fighters were sunk. They were given over a hour to respond but none of them could even get off the ground before the tsunami arrived. This says pretty much about the capability of the SDF.

    • David

      I will assume you mean this is the ‘practical’ reason why they should not engage in war. Because of course war is horrible and thousands and even millions of innocents die in it.

      I think both countries would be safe if they were employing defensive measures and only fighting a defensive war. China could not control the skies and seas, which is needed to launch an invasion of Japan and Japan does not have the manpower to do a land invasion of China even if they controlled the air and sea lanes (and the U.S. would never contribute men for a Japanese invasion of China)..

      • chucky3176

        You’re going way too far. Neither countries will invade each other. Any war will be a short series of battles in the air and sea around the disputed islands. I think the outcome will be settled in a very quick fashion, followed by a long drawn out hostility of words and tensions and economic retaliations.

        • lacompacida

          I see the war starts with destruction of radar installations on the mainland. You do not want your enemies to see what you are doing on those islands. AWACS over West Japanese Sea and West Korean Sea is a good signal for what’s coming.

        • David

          I agree, which is why I was saying defensively nether country really has anything to worry about. Both sides realize at this point that an offensive war would not be a successful venture.

        • DavidisDawei

          Do Koreans believe the North will start another war to take the South?

      • lacompacida

        The best defence is offence. Any you want to understand your enemy. To discover how your enemy will react to challenges, and their response protocol, you have to test them. And you need your enemy to provide training opportunities to your own troops too. It was too bad that PLAAF didn’t send their fighters out to play. May be they shouldn’t. You need experience drivers for fast cars.

        • David

          Yes, countries do that not infrequently. They like to buzz the defenses of other countries. We have been having Russian bombers in our air space (not some zone, actually above our land) in Alaska lately. Normally you lock missiles on to them and they leave. However, occasionally somebody tries to play too dangerously and somebody gets shot down..

  • chucky3176

    China and Japan should settle their differences like this

    • Insomnicide

      Settle their differences with Koreans?

      • Chucky3176

        Sure, why not? Just bring your own water guns.

    • Kai

      LoL, reminds me of Spring Break in Palm Springs, except, uh, with a lot more Koreans. I like the store owner with the bucket, and the firefighters coming in was pretty awesome. No contest if they turned their hoses full blast though. Love the music too.

    • lacompacida

      But dressed more frugally. Less material, I mean.

  • DC

    Asia would be a better place if Abe stepped down.

    • Hanonimooce

      Agree, the CCP should also hand over China to the KMT. For a better Asia.

      • Alex Dương

        I agree, but keep in mind that the KMT never relinquished Chinese claims to Tibet, Xinjiang, the Spratlys / Paracels, Arunachal Pradesh / Aksai Chin, and Diaoyu / Senkaku.

      • 白色纯棉小裤裤

        CCP has always been blamed for being too weak on foreign policy by chinese netizens, that CCP officials are too corrupt to care about national interest and all they care is their own well beings. I hope China will one day be truly democratic then we can give people like you a big surprise.
        The nine-dash line in the South China Sea was drawn by the KMT, it is the CCP who did nothing to secure all the island within the nine-dash line, if KMT was in power then there wouldn’t be any dispute on those islands because they would have been already ours.

  • Probotector

    “China’s Air Force responded with necessary tracking and monitoring.”

    Didn’t they think to scramble escort fighters to intercept the Japanese aircraft and lad them out of Chinese airspace. This is typically standard procedure for any nation’s air defence.

    • lacompacida

      They can always ram them like the US surveillance plane did to a Chinese fighter in South China Sea several years ago. It was quite successful, the Chinese fighter was down, and the pilot killed.

      • Alex Dương

        Considering that the surveillance plane was detained and disassembled, your standard of “quite successful” seems rather childish.

  • lacompacida

    Other than Reasonable, proper, restrained response, what else can a surveillance plane do to F15’s ? Ram it like the US surveillance plane did to a Chinese fighter in West Filipino Sea several years go ?

    • ptptp

      It’s truly doubtful that a slow, prop plane could ram a fighter jet as you and the Chinese government claim.

  • disqus_wcDnEMiQ1s

    Who cares. When you make claims you can’t enforce, and that the rest of the world tells you they’re going to ignore, well I guess you can expect to be issuing some “condemnations”… Give us some more stories about how foreigners are the devil. At least those are entertaining :)

  • Yes!

    Interesting article: F35 the game changer in the Pacific:

    http://thediplomat.com/2013/04/game-changer-the-f-35-and-the-pacific/1/

    • Alex Dương
      • Yes!

        Of course I am. Huge controversy, massive cost overrun, missed deadline, etc. Dun mean it’s not going to be the game changer that the writer thinks it can be. I think the real problem is not with the jet, altho they still need to work on it, but it’s the whole concept of the jet being part of the bigger war plan. It’s a big leap, but it’ll be awesome when they do iron out the kinks. Meanwhile you still have more than enough Raptors and Falcons to match the Russkies for dogfights if they’re up for it, and the Chinese.

        • Alex Dương

          The reason I asked is because the article you linked to reads as if it were written by a Lockheed salesman.

  • jon9521

    What right does China have to declare this defense zone? I think the Japanese have a perfect right to patrol the area

    • Guest

      Define ‘right’.

  • Slenth

    The area in question is only claimed by China. NO ONE else recognizes this area as China’s territory. Because it’s not. This is a stupid as claiming Taiwan is part of China, because once again, it’s not. Deal with it.

  • Insomnicide

    Why do I know this song.

    • Brandai

      HMS PInafore (or Star Trek: Insurrection)

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»