Tensions rise as China accuses USA of provocation; DPRK tests ICBM - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14821752
Re; SCS
mikema63 wrote:Two-thirds of South Korea’s energy supplies, 60 percent of Japan’s, 60 percent of Taiwan’s go through those seas. China's control over them would give china effective power to shut down those countries if it wanted to. Vietnam get's pretty much all it's trade through the south china sea as well. None of these nations nor the US can afford for the Chinese to be able to shut down access to these waters.

Japan, Korea and Taiwan can trade through the Pacific if the SCS is closed and Vietnam's trade hugs the coast and rarely enters the SCS. China is in a vulnerable position because it cannot access the Pacific or the Indian ocean without traversing a choke point.

Image
#14821765
The USS Stethem, a guided-missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island, part of the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, the official said.


The Paracel Islands in the South China Sea have been claimed by China since 1956 and the oil rig has been built nearby in recent years, which China is trying to protect by militarizing these islands. Probably it's Vietnam which should back down and I don't known why the US needs to intervene in the regional dispute over natural resources. Vietnam argues that it has actively ruled over both the Paracels and the Spratlys since the 17th Century but it clearly lost control of them while Vietnam was a French colony known as French Indochina.

Image
#14821769
Regarding Korea, even if things escalate, they can stay limited and then De-escalate. Maybe it would be beneficial in the long run, if the two parties give themselves a black eye in a temporary scuffle. It might highlight the unseemly cost of a total war for both sides and bring them back to the negotiating table.

As for China, this $1 trillion project is going to address that momentary vulnerability, access to the Pacific is not really relevant beyond posing as a layered defense and it being a direction of attack by the US-China need only build a deterrent in that direction, it isn't focused in increasing its trade with the Americas:

Image

Note that every major port along the sea based route is going to be accompanied by a land based corridor. Thus every potential choke point is either by-passable or bolstered by land. This would make the sea borne trade flexible, and if need be, completely redundant. India is being bypassed because it chose not to participate in the transit scheme. However trade between India and China will continue to grow and its own major rail and road trunk networks will be connected to surrounding corridors.

China needs unrestricted access to Afro-Eurasia to meet all its needs. This is doable within ~20-30 years. The Pacific is going to be of increasingly little relevance, there is nothing there and the US will comprise a smaller and smaller percentage of Chinese trade over time as Africa, middle east and the rest of Asia catch up to the rest of the world in terms of urbanization and industrialization.
#14822088
Maybe a limited conflict would help remind everyone what's at stake.

I wonder though. What if the US just recognizes NK as a state, tries to normalize relations, does business with it? We do business with all sorts of shit regimes in the middle east anyway.... I wonder how that would play out.

What exactly is wrong? We know how many rockets w[…]

Leslie woman gets to the point. Lol. https:[…]

I'm surprised to see the genocide supporters (lik[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]