[Serious] China Trying to Invade SEA Seas


Hi there. We thought it would be nice to write an article about this issue because there are very few blogs about Chinese entertainment out there, and we want to offer a platform for the readers. It is a more serious and political related post so we will try to be as unbiased as possible. A few celebrities we cover often showed their support for the movement.

On our blog, our audience is by order mostly: United States, Australia and Canada. Then, comes Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Philippines, Thailand, and Germany. Although I don’t have the distribution for the commenters, I do understand that a lot of our readers are concerned with this issue. Hence, we believe it is even more important to deliver these information. I will only give my opinion at the end of this post.

The official description of the #中国一点都不能少# tag on weibo which can be translated as: China Cannot Lose Even One Bit.


South China Sea islands belong to China since ancient times. Denying Chinese rights is like denying China’s sovereignty, that is a flagrant violation of international law. This is China, cannot lose even a bit.


Geographical Locations and allies:

China states that islands such as Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha (Spratly Islands) were first discovered and exploited by China. The country has been using the islands for 2000 years now and says the territory is their ancestors’. Out of the sea of 3.50 million km square, China says that 2million km square belongs to them. A big amount of that space is close to the Philippines.

6 7

It is a known fact that these waters are rich in resources. China’s fishermen had gone close to Philippines to extract resources, but were arrested by locals. It is also theorized that China wants ownership of this space to build artificial island, which will be a thread for countries around and the US.

Hague Outcome:

The Hague court (an international tribunal) ruled in favor of Philippines, but Chinese government refuses to accept the ruling since the organization is not affiliated with the United Nations and none of the judges were Asian. Afterwards, China stated it has the rights to set up an air defense zone. Those statements are then followed by actions as China already did two test flights from the Mischief Reef and the Subi Reef.


Later, Beijing gave up its rights to the South China Sea by signing a United Nations convention. This could hopeful close the whole debate and end the fear of war in Asia. The U.S is backing up Philippines throughout this process. Taiwan, which is part of China, is in a tight spot since they were among the countries who initiated the complaint against Mainland China. With the successful ruling, there may be more countries that will follow the example of Philippines.

Realistically, the Hague court has no real power to set this ruling in motion. Hence, there is a high chance the Chinese government will continue to access those territories especially considering the strong feelings of its people. From a political point of view, it is a really bad thing and some people are even afraid of a World War. If China wishes to be recognized as a tier one country, it is important to forge better relationship with other countries.

Celebrities getting involved:

Many celebrities came forward and shared the hashtag #中国一点都不能少# (you can follow it here). The list of celebrities can be found here and it is a huge majority of them who expressed their support to the movement.

It is ok to like China:

Everyone should be allowed to have their own opinion. In this kind of political situation, there is no “right” opinion. We can judge China for its lack of diplomacy, but can we judge a whole nation for their beliefs? China is a lot more than what people online are trying to make out of this. Furthermore, politics is politics. Just because a celebrity decided to share their standing over the issue doesn’t make them stupid, bad or controlled by the government. There is so much more to a person and a country then one statement its government is making.

Thank you for reading this article 🙂 I am sure we missed some key points on this event and any informative comment is welcome!


36 thoughts on “[Serious] China Trying to Invade SEA Seas

  1. Ann says:

    Honestly, as a Canadian, I think it would be hypocritical to criticize what Chinese celebs are doing. Canada openly supported U.S.’s acts of terror and even sent soldiers to help. In fact, why hasn’t any international organization ruled against Bush and Obama’s numerous invasions in the Middle East and Africa?? It’s caused so much chaos and death that has been more impactful than this dispute over a sea (which is mainly a gateway for trade and a source of resources). Nobody is getting physically hurt and it’s not like China has tried to completely take over any country like America did in the Middle East i.e. with Iraq. I find it utterly ridiculous that the Japanese navy is occupying this sea as if it’s theirs now. Also, why is the U.S. supplying the Philippines with $46 million worth of weapons… I really think it’s simply a power play on the part of the U.S., the country who is clearly in control of international rulings, which is why rulings are never against them. I see it as the U.S. trying to undermine China’s rising power as they’ve done time and time again by supplying weapons to neighbouring countries causing attacks on Chinese borders. So many innocent Chinese civilians have died in these public attacks i.e. at train stations. The more I read about politics, the more injustice I feel.. And I can’t help but support China because somehow, I feel as though China is constantly being subjected to negative campaigning and underhanded tactics. If China is going to be attacked, why doesn’t the U.S. or Canada or Germany etc get attacked as well? After all, Western countries have done much worse even within the past year. Germany attacked refugee camps with tear gas, and have elite squads at its borders spraying any refugees with chemical weapons. I’m sorry, but I think media coverage is too one-sided. I also feel that Western countries have no ground to condemn China when their actions have been immoral


    • Liesette says:

      When has Germany attacked refugee camps with tear gas and when did Germans spray chemical weapons on refugees at its borders?? Germany took in nearly 2 Millions of refugees in 2015/2016 and the borders are still open! You are complaining about negative campaignings of China, please get your facts straight!


    • j says:

      I refrain from siding with a particular side as I’m not a politician. But both sides need to be more “sensitive and thoughtful”. For China, they need a way to communicate in a way that’s easier for their “listeners” to digest. Keep doing things one way and not achieving the result they are hoping for really needs careful thoughts and strategies.

      It’s often the case the strong tends to overlook (and sometimes may even bully) the weak. This can be true at a country level or at the individual person level.

      For Western countries: China has had a pretty weak foundation since the Qing dynasty. Qing treasury did have the highest total amount of funds for a country at the time, but it was nevertheless on a non-sustainable path and was on a downward trajectory. Qing gov is not strong with science, tech, and industrial matters. Yet emperor Qian Long was building multiple grand palace and temple complexes in Beijing and Chengde. Then things got progressively worse and China was in a horrible state for many decades. Meanwhile, the West has advanced sci/tech/med and econ at a much faster rate since around the 1800s. Some imperialism etc. were used on the side while tech/economies are being improved upon. The the last couple of hundred years, huge parts of the West are far ahead of China. It is easy for the West, who is generally more advanced, to criticize and dictate that others should do things the current Western ways. The West doesn’t have a squeaky clean record either while it was experiencing its explosive growth periods. Though obviously there are a lot of fine points not discussed here.

      Imagine an older person A was born into an affluent family. Had the means to study until a PhD degree and now has a successful career. Person B grew up in an impoverished family and was born 100 years after B. It’s a lot harder for B to accomplish as much as A, given B’s less fortunate start. Career competition is a lot tougher now too with globalization. This is similar to the West vs China situation.

      What do you think of the above?

      Living in only one region complicates a lot of things. Each region only presents its own one-sided editorials. You never get an unbiased full coverage. This is why I am not siding with either side.


  2. intellectualkitten says:

    I will also write my opinion here! To me, it is a question of diplomacy and instead of turning it into a joke (e.g. I had this 20 years ago, does it mean it is still mine?, etc), people should read more facts. The more I read about it and the more I realize how this situation is in a grey zone. Of course, China would want to “appeal” the ruling, they have reasons to do so. However, I am not fully on the side of China either…

    Another thing, Korean netizens telling Chinese idols to move back to their country since they support the hashtag… I don’t see how this is relevant. Korea is not even one of the countries concerned and turning on someone for a political action is not justified (imo)

    Liked by 1 person

    • the problem is Korea has the same kind of problem with Japan, sort of sympathizing gesture. and another problem netizens are just hunger for hate. They send home every body just because they need to aim the hate in any particular direction, doesn’t matter whether is Chinese artist or Lady Gaga.


      • intellectualkitten says:

        Hmm… I used to think it as a superiority complex, but haters are gonna hate no matter what.


      • mari says:

        I really wish the Chinese entertainers would not get political, because to the international legal community, it is pretty clear cut that China is in the wrong. Their claim on the islands they say goes back centuries, and they issued a map in 1947 that details it claims with no coordinates. However Vietnam hotly contends this, stating it has 17th century documents to detail Vietnam’s sovereignty over some of the islands with documents/maps/coordinates to prove it, whereas China’s claim to sovereignty was in the 1940’s. The issues with the islands/oceans contested with Philippines is that China is claiming territories and water so close to it. Also, China SIGNED the ‘Law of the Sea’ Treaty after 1947, in which rules for drawing zones of control over the world’s oceans based on coastlines distance – were agreed upon. Once it signed the Treaty, China agreed at that point how oceans would be divvied up.

        Another point is that the historic rights to these islands were from the government that the current communist government either killed or ousted to Taiwan. So to claim these islands based upon the blood of the previous government – is laughable.

        And it’s been contentious. China killed 70 vietnamese troops when it tried to seize some of the islands.

        Anyways, just because someone else does something wrong, doesn’t make it ok for you or me to do it too.


      • intellectualkitten says:

        Sadly, they didn’t really had the option to be silent (considering how fired up the online community was) 😦 I just want to point out it is actually normal they didn’t have exact coordinates… after all, it is in the sea! Also, it is a strategic move because they probably wanted as much as they can of those sea.
        From the official claims, it looks like Vietnam has a lot more facts on their side which helped them win the ruling. However, from Mainland China’s pov, it looks like they were undercut. Kinda silly Chinese people are putting it on the United States, but I don’t think they are 100% innocent either.
        (Again, everything above is my understanding :P)


  3. When I first read about this case, I thought it was crazy China would put itself against the whole world. It is obvious bullying toward his own neighbors! That map was the most shocking at first because it looks like China has nearly no business there (maybe it can try to get a 5-10%, not a 57%!
    But then I read more about this case and I also thought more about it. It is true that China doesn’t technically have any right on these waters. But look at the whole world! Every powerful country started by taking more territorial space, even if they are far from their actual land. Think of England with Hong Kong or even United States with Hawai. Can we really blame China for doing something other countries had been doing for years? This is about politics, about a struggle to have power in the international ground, about the security of the countries around the SEA area. The fact that the government is implying the celebrities in this is not surprising either. If it already knew that the court will rule against it (and it was pretty sure it would), at least it needed the sentiment/nationalism of the people to keep going.
    All in all, I can see why this happened. BUT, China is being a bully in this situation which disappoint me. I wish the Asian countries worked together to become stronger, not to go against each other.


    • Jo says:

      Its all about control. All the big powers do it because it benefits their interest. This whole thing is a mess and I don’t think it will end any time soon. Its difficult when it comes to sea borders, and all those resources make the land even more profitable, China wants it for that reason. No one wins in this situation. Unless all the resources magically disappear, this is going to be a long battle of this land is my land


      • Exactly! They are doing it for controle over land, security and natural ressources. Asia has so many islands which causes conflicts of interest often. This time, however, the media is picking on it a lot more. You are probably right when you say it will (sadly) not end anytime soon..

        Liked by 1 person

  4. ss3happy1 says:

    Wait, what does the hashtag mean? Are the chinese celebrities supporting The Chinese Decision for sovereignty? Or are they against it? It seems every major Chinese celebrity is tweeting the hashtag lol.

    Honestly, I see points from both sides. Maybe a compromise can be reached on how much of the sea each country gets.

    The good thing about all of this is that the conflict is rather peaceful. It’s not like WW2 or something, where Invading countries just come over and take everything they want lol.

    It seems the entire world values sovereignty. Britain left the EU for that reason.


    • intellectualkitten says:

      The hashtag means China Cannot Be Smaller = China Cannot Lose Another Bit, so they are supporting taking control of those territories 🙂
      Hopefully it is not another Cold War :”)


  5. Jo says:

    I don’t think the celebs or any people in China should be cricized for supporting what their govt is doing. To me, the land looks closer to the Philippines so I understand why they would be upset that China wants tp take over the land, but then I also understand China’s point because historical- technically it belongs to them. This is what sucks about drawing borders via the sea(India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (i think) have that same problem which causes issues fpr the locals. But this land is technically uninhabited. The main reason their fighting is for control and resources, 1. its a way for the Philippines to expand and grow their econ and 2. China can expand and have more control, the sad thing about this is citizens suffer- future generations will suffer. Theirs no win-win. What I do hate is the death threats people are sending to the celebs. That’s a big NO NO


    • mari says:

      The thing is that China’s historical claim is not proven, whereas Vietnam’s is – with older 17th century documents to prove it (including maps and coordinates). With the areas that China is fighting with the Philippines – once China signed the Law of Seas Treaty – it agreed to how the areas would be divided. It’s going back on what was signed and agreed upon.


      • Jo says:

        Yeah, that’s why I said technically because tech they do and tech they don’t, 😳😳and I realize a lot of the powers go back on their word or find random loopholes. The whole thing is a mess 😩


  6. CD says:

    Politics is full of gray areas. I just know that every country think for themselves, that’s not a bad thing. I just dislike the fact that the media in China doesn’t really support different opinions. If a celeb say the wrong thing they can get backlash from it. Like the Taiwan incident, seriously its a person’s right to believe what they want to believe. I hope no celebrity will get into serious trouble if they don’t support that hashtag.


  7. It’s an awkward situation for Australia because we have always been very supportive of the US (who is supporting the Philippines in this case) but want to keep on the good side of China (our largest trading partner).

    China has expanded so much in recent years, which has made it a threat to western powers like the US. There’s still a lot of cultural differences and pre-existing prejudices against China, so I feel like unrelated parties are leaning more to the side that’s not China.

    We can criticise China for not following the Hague Court’s ruling and overstepping boundaries, but if people (incl celebrities) want to express their opinions and appeal the decision, I don’t see why not…

    Having said that, I feel like it is more a matter of face & national pride for China (even though economic interests are a major factor).


  8. Miss Attache says:

    It’s interesting to read the comments, and IMO many have indeed correctly assessed the actual situation, i.e. it’s a grey area and that neither party is 100% innocent. It’s very understandable that Mainland actors expressed patriotic sentiment afterward, and it will be the same with the Philippines artists, they will outright defend their country. (Although I’m curious about the Taiwanese actors, as Taiwan is a claimant as well).

    The claimant countries of the Spratly Islands and waters around the South China Sea are China, Taiwan (it’s a de facto separate/independent entity), 4 ASEAN nations (Brunei, Malaysia, Viet Nam, and the Philippines). Indonesia is NOT a claimant party, but it does have an issue with China’s so-called “Nine Dash Policy” which often times drags Indonesia into the territorial dispute.

    Nine Dash (or Nine Dots) Policy is China’s unilateral claim in which China puts some imaginary dots in SCS, draws lines between the dots, and declares that the areas below the dots are historically theirs. (More on that, please Google). And here lies the problem: territories TODAY in modern time are based on mutual/common consent among nations, not based on historical and unilateral claim. Therefore up until now neighboring states are still negotiating land and maritime borders.

    All claimant countries, except Taiwan who isn’t a UN member state, are parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That means they ought to adhere to the UNCLOS rulings, which were their creation in the beginning. If there are different interpretation on the application of UNCLOS to their borders, they negotiate it or bring the case to the international legal bodies (either the International Court of Justice/ICJ, the Permanent Court of Arbitration/PCA, or the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea/ITLOS). The verdict is binding, though admittedly neither has enforcer agency.

    China’s Nine Dash Policy is not in concordance with UNCLOS, and many countries have called out China about it, including non-claimant country like Indonesia. Moreover, the other claimant countries have been protesting China for sending military vessels around the disputed area and reclaiming disputed islands.

    Another fact is that while China is often portrayed as bullying her smaller opponents (in the SCS case), the other claimant countries have also been occupying and developing islands without others’ consent. So they are also doing what China has been doing, although they don’t have the equal military capabilities to defend themselves effectively when confronting Chinese navy, for instance.

    That is also one of the reasons why the Philippines brought the case to the PCA in 2013. The 4 ASEAN countries have been negotiating with China, both bilaterally as well as regionally (through the ASEAN-China forum), to little effect. It was frustrating for the claimant countries because even among ASEAN there are different views, since China is an important partner of ASEAN.

    The matter is more complicated because it’s an area that is not only important to the claimant countries, but to most trading countries, because it’s the passage way for trading voyages. So most would like to ensure that it will remain peaceful, but at the same time they want to ensure that ships can access the area freely.

    Sorry for the lengthy response LOL. I would just like to share what I know about the situation 🙂


    • intellectualkitten says:

      😯 omg, there is so much information in this comment! Your comment is very similar to what I read online from unbiased people and I hope more people will read it ^^
      The media and celebrities are acting like it is about “National Pride” but on a larger scale, it is about economical and political power.


  9. xingfenzhen says:

    I for one sees the possibility of war as quite substantial, and commitment of US interference to be greater than what has been posted here. For example, everything that has happened so far benefits US national interest more than anyone else. I will not talk about history here, since it’s murky is often a case of he said, she said. I will only talk about realist politics and its scary outcomes.

    The PCA ruling (note, it is not ICJ) that demoted Taiping Island (Itu Aba)’s island status quite surprised me, since EEZ sharing is an acceptable position for China, as it would have been close Chinese proposal in 2002 (Accepted by Philippines but rejected after change of government in the Philippines) and 2005 (Rejected by Philippines); but the political status of Taiwan would almost indefinitely table of the item. The current PCA ruling means none of the islands in the South China Sea actually islands, would make EEZ only projected from mainland effective making all non-coastal regions international waters. (Which is what the US wants, as it would the Navy can freely operate in the Area), and a substantial claims line of both Philippines and Vietnam would have been erase. (It effect Vietnam the most, since without those islands, Vietnam’s position well less than its current position and only marginally better than that they would have got via a settlement with China) If note the claim lines, none of them really follow UNLOS, that is because China, Vietnam and Philippines all entered UNLOS with SCS as exception of the treaty, meaning the lines will be delimited by future negotiations. The sticking point right now is can these exceptions over ruled by arbitration as well, especially if Arbitration is not agreed by all parties. (note arbitration is different from court proceeding) China says it can’t, while Philippines and the US says it can.
    Philippines Claim Line

    Vietnam Claim Line

    Current Line of control (Though Taiwan/RoC only controls two islands, they control the biggest natural islands and the only one with a natural source of fresh water. Which until the current PCA ruling is what’s differentiates an island and a land feature. (If this definition is broadly implement, other islands such as Midway and Diego Garcia as well as numerous minor islands in Micronesia and Polynesia would be also at risk of demotion)

    For the United States however, this ruling places the entire region as international water, as none of the islands are considered an island, and so far events have followed the strategy laid out via the Heritage Foundation which among its goals is to defeat maritime claims of all nations in the region as prevent anyone from reaching bilateral agreement with China.

    Since the PCA ruling have made previous Chinese offer moot, China has hardened it position and removed previous ambiguity surrounding 9DL (Which also means offering the same terms as they did in 2002 and 2005 is now impossible as well). So short of war, there is little possibility of China from retracting from its current position. While current situation was compared to the Cod Wars between UK and Iceland (which is also a 200nm EEZ vs historical claims), however in this case the US has far less leverage on China vs it has on UK and none of the claimants occupy the leverage Iceland had with the US. (i.e. the Gate keeper of Soviet Nuclear Submarines)
    Then this leaves war, which I think the possibility is quite high. Especially if the United States starts to perform military operation inside the 12 nm line of one of the Chinese islands with a Chinese naval ship either shadowing it or start playing bumper cars. All it takes is just a single captain firing the first shot and the ball will get rolling. And once it starts going, it also impossible to stop it, as the blood draw from the initial conflicts will sustain itself; just as only month going into World War 1, no one gives a damn about Serbia or Austria in war, it all about whether Germany, France and Russia. (while UK get a lots of attention in US history books, it didn’t play a major role until mid-1915) I posted the which shows possible progression of the war:

    After the PCA ruling I can see two path going forward that can lead to war. 1. China trying to consolidates it position starts to drudge Huangyan island/ Scarborough Shoal, and it is stop by Filipino coast guard and US naval ship. 2. Following PCA ruling, Philippines tries to consolidates position and tries to either send an oil rig or trying to evict one of the Chinese islands, and stopped by Chinese coast guard. In both cases, Chinese coast has both size and numerical advantage if the incident stayed at bumper car level, and US/ Philippines would have to withdraw unless they shot and sink and if a shooting war does happen (and would happen, if the tensions got to that point. Accidentally or by plan) then I see several stages of escalation.

    1. Immediate forces on the scene engage, either all Chinese forces in the area sunk or US/ Philippines withdraw. (I do not see Chinese forces withdrawing as an option given how politics and history of China works. The commander and sailor will regret that they did not die on the battlefield if they ever return to China.) I only see the latter as option to stop the conflict at this stage, however, if the US/ Philippines withdraw there is no reason to start shooting in the first place. Thus, there is no reason stage 2 would not happen if stage 1 happened.

    2. Wide engagement of US and Chinese forces in the wide area, the scale and end result of that is engage will depended on deployment at the time; which is hard to predict. I imagine at least 3 to 4 CVBG should be in the area, there should be USAF deployment at Clark field at the time and all PLAAF, PLANAF in Hainan, Yongxin (Woody Island), and newly constructed islands (if deployed) will be on high alert. No matter what the outcome of the engagement is, I do not see China will be able to hold on SCS south of Yong Xin, and I do not see USN able to effectively operate north of Yongxin (Woody) since harden airfields in inland China would start come into play, unless USN escalate to stage 3.

    Assuming China is still in play and continue the conflicts (hard to image otherwise). It would stabilize into the following situations
    a. Naval blockade of China is in place and largely effective. (Given this, it’s hard to imagine why China would not just mine the entire SCS, given their capabilities. This way, China will certainly suffer more than the US, and US allies in the region will certainly suffer more than China. China can use it capacities to disrupt mine clearing operation and score small victories for the Chinese publics to keep the war going.

    b. If the desire is to keep escalation chain at his level, there would be almost ritualized warfare in small to medium scale raids and air battles. And there are implicit or explicit ROE on both side on what lines not to cross. However, casualties will continuous and the “war” will seem absurd in the eyes of both servicemen and the public.

    c. I can see at least half of American military asset will be tied up in this “war” of attrition, how long will Americans put to this and what implications does this have to the rest of world, only god know.

    d. The status of the garrison (if any) in those newly constructed island is unknown, and how they will be blockaded, sieged or droven out via amphibious landing as well as how PLAN will supply them could be a whole other drama for this “war”

    e. At anytime US tries to disengage, China will reclaim those islands (probably all of them), and after a shooting war, I doubt China will give any concession either. Therefore, any US disengagement at this or any future point will look like another vietnam. So there is real incentive for the US to continue, short of say Russia invasion of EU.

    f. A interesting sci fi take on this is the we are supposed on the cusp of artificial super intelligence, and it is a technology that can destroy humanity if it’s human interaction are not carefully designed. Well, this such a war is going, I can see drones controlled by an advanced neural network being implemented in the mid to late stages of the war, as both sides are trying to gain an advantage given the constraints and as a means to control casualties. However, this means the development AI is closely tied with killing humans, and if ASI is as scary as some say, it would end even more badly than a nuclear war. Details here.

    2.5 Vietnam would be an interesting case, if American plan to base in Vietnam, I believe China has lower threshold to attack the Vietnamese bases compared other locations. And a land war component could happen in this theater as well. I see this as gateway for automatic escalation into stage 3

    3. If initial engagement is not a limited one, then Chinese bases and infrastructure in Hainan, Yongxin, Southern China and possibly eastern China could be under attack. (How Japan will factor into this would be interesting as well) Which will be reciprocated in American bases in Asia as well as in Guam being hit. If US operating out of Korea as well, they’re probably be hit as well, North Korea (or south korea for that matter) could take advantage of this and other another front (and China will be forced to joining in as North Korea defeat could lead to American forces in NE China (I see this as gateway for automatic escalation onto stage 4). Taiwan as I said before, may declare independence open another front as well. (Even if they do not, their geographical location may be still get involved as both side tries to broke the “stalemate”. After the initial wave of destruction, it’s hard to imagine either China or US to be knocked out like this, as damages runway/infrastructure can be repaired and lost plane can be rebuilt, so stage 3 will just be a more intense version of stage 2, unless you go to stage 4.

    4. US fighting a land war in in mainland Asia. It can be either through Vietnam or Korea as well as Amphibious landing in China. This will be bonfire world war 3, and it probably would not end too well, so stage 5…

    5. Nuclear war. I see US having overwhelming advantage in this, but can you really win a nuclear war, especially if China does have credible second strike capability?

    The possibility of Chinese defeat is if Chinese government somehow collapses in stage 2 through 4 and plunge into chaos, thus eliminating the most serious challenger to American dominance in the 21st century. This is the only rational reason I can think of why the US would be willing to do this, since a sizable number US think tanks believe Chinese regime is vulnerable due to internal stress and an outside disturbance (such as a major defeat) will cause its collapse. Details read former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • xingfenzhen says:

      To put things in historical perspective, the Great War (WWI) and Peloponnesian war can help you understand how great power politics works. Watch these video if you’re interest

      The first 6 episodes of this exelent series

      The second lecture of the exelent series on the Peloponnesian war. (Warning, dense Yale lecture)


    • intellectualkitten says:

      Thank you for all this information! I haven’t read until the end but if something happens like you suggested, I will definitely come back to read the post again.
      I am not very familiar with political issues but from what I noticed, China and the US became more hostile in the last couple of months. I also heard the exportation of China is having a hard time finding a viable market. I am not saying Chinese economy is going to crush, but putting themselves against the US will have so many negatives outcomes. I don’t see a benefit for them to go to war… They are unstable both politically and economically.
      Again, kudos to you for bringing these information to light. I hope no one is stupid enough to start a WW3


      • Paige says:

        Actually, U.S. will have a hard time too. A lot of U.S. companies have factories and bases in China, they will suffer from boycotts i.e. Honda, Toyota had to leave the Chinese market due to the conflict between China and Japan. U.S. also still owes China over $300 billion and they have yet to pay that debt back. If the Chinese economy crashes, internationally, the economy will likely crash as well. Also, while I’m Chinese-American, the U.S. supplying $42 million worth of weapons to the Philippines and trying to get the sea declared as international waters are clearly putting America against China. China hasn’t taken action as of yet. It’s really U.S.’s doing… I don’t get why because I don’t want to see anyone I know have to go to war like what happened with Iraq and now with ISIS. We need to stop creating chaos, what’s the point of expanding if it’s going to mean death and destruction. I hope to God that Trump is not going to be elected because if he is, I see war as a huge possibility in the near future


      • intellectualkitten says:

        Thats true, I tend to forget about American manufactures in China. Yes, agree with the point “If Chinese economy crash, so will the international market”. As some people commented in this post, countries like Australia are in a hard position.
        A war could be interesting since the outcomes will greatly advance China or US position internationally and there are pros that cannot be achieved without it. HOWEVER, at the end of the day, a war is a war and totally unjustified imo no matter the circumstances.
        If Clinton is elected, it would still be under the same party… but I find it hard to believe she would go to war…


      • xingfenzhen says:

        If a major war does happen, then both Chinese and American economies will transition to war economies. Similar to what happened to American and Soviet Economies in world war 2 (Nazi Germany, interestingly did not fully mobilized its economy until late in the war ~1943). In that case, the civilian economy that we are used to would not really be crushing, but it would fade out of existence: no more iphones, no more computers, and no more tv dramas, the only things will produced are gun, planes, missiles among other things will help with the war effort.

        All the normal things we associate with economics would go out the window, and only things that will matter is
        – Resource inputs: Oil, Gas, Iron ore, rare metals, farmlands etc
        – Industrial capacity: the availability of factories to turn resource inputs into weapons, ammunition and food to sustain the war effort
        – Manpower: the availability of the population to maintain industrial capacity at maximum efficiency while still maintaining a large enough army in the face of attrition.

        As you can see, both US and China has plenty of both, so war can be sustained for a long long time… particularly if Russia or the Middle east blows as the world police is busy with China. Especially since Russia stands to benefit the most in this conflict as the oil price will collapse since China is under a naval blockade cutting most of it oil demand, while Russia will be able to sell oil to China at much higher prices than pre-collapse prices.

        Low oil prices will further destabilize the middle east as well, since states like Saudi Arabia, Iran which rely on high oil prices will be similar situation as Venezuela right now, except they are in a much more geopolitically sensitive area. In the power vacuum, perhaps a large middle eastern state with size and power similar to the Ottoman Empire will finally emerge. Perhaps it’s Turkey effectively reforming the Ottoman Empire, or Egypt finally getting the United Arab Republic work on their third try, or in the worst case scenario, ISIS succeeds in recreating a new Caliphate 800 years after the collapse of the Abbasids.

        In any case, if the situation escalates, it will could be the defining event of the 21st century, or even human history thus far.


      • intellectualkitten says:

        Thanks a lot! These days, I have been reading more information about internation politics and China is very omnipresent in the news. China has a very strong base for war and does not care as much about the normal citizen as other developped countries. It may lose lives but it can also win the war


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s