WWIII starts in the East...or will it?

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

It's surprising actually that everybody thinks China lost the war. For what my friend says(as his relatives were in the war), here's a simple proof.
Before the war there was a gate that stood as the traditional border between Beijing and Hanoi, after the war that gate was deep in Chinese territory.
Furthermore the Chinese were apparently quite close to Hanoi. They only retreated because the Vietnamese agreed to pull out of Cambodjia.

Huh... Well, since this is your friend's family, I'll take your word for it. I thought that withdrawal was because the Chinese took such horrendous casualties from reservist units using guerrilla tactics.

In that case...yeah, China would probably try shoving Vietnam around again in this scenario.

 

[Cryostorm]

Point...



Not sure about India, but Vietnam would probably back the US considering how sour relations are between them and China.



Then the Chinese government just withdraw into the interior...then what?

What else would the US have to do, China is now mostly blockaded and likely suffering shortages of critical supplies such as oil, it has lost the vast majority of its industrial and economic output, and militarily it has been humiliated and will likely be suffering revolts from it minorities and disatisfied citizens so the US just has to sit back and wait for China to capitulate while it holds the line in Korea, if not pushing into North Korea.

 

[mlp]

Huh... Well, since this is your friend's family, I'll take your word for it. I thought that withdrawal was because the Chinese took such horrendous casualties from reservist units using guerrilla tactics.

In that case...yeah, China would probably try shoving Vietnam around again in this scenario.

If the Chinese are stupid enough to make this scenario come about, that is.
The Politburo Standing Committee members are too invested in the success of the Chinese economy to be gambling this for some increase of domestic support.

 

[adamu_kun]

The Americans out of Korea and Korea under Chinese influence? The Japanese centrists and right wing will go up in flames. Its understandable that they hate us over the events of the past, but letting China make a satellite out of Korea is similar to letting Imperial Germany making protectorates out of the Low Countries.

I agree that there the centrists and right wingers in Japan will be shouting until they go blue in the face and the uyoko-dantai will be having a field day, but really, what can Japan do about it?

With China sitting in former North Korea and refusing to budge to allow reunification unless the US leaves makes me think that the US would have little option but to leave, no matter what Japan says.

Going into China's sphere of influence is not really a result of South Korea's hatred of Japan and in many ways, you could already argue that it is. South Korea often chimes in with China about Japan's refusal to offer an apology for what it got up to in the Pacific War, it already has a huge amount of trade with China and businesses in China; Koreans make up the largest overseas population in China. As well as this, Korea was historically close to China through the imperial tribute system. Finally, if China is offering to help modernise and rebuild North Korea, South Korea is not going to want to annoy them.

The US will have to leave or risk keeping a split Korean peninsula, risk having conflict with China and potentially a unified Korea and have to face the public at home who may not be supportive of continued US presence if it is only likely to lead to war. It's not like the US needs Korea for any raw materials or important trade routes.

I mean, this isn't Falklands 1980s when it wasn't all that clear if the UK would defend the islands, the PRC knows that the US will defend Taiwan.

Does it? The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee that the US will provide military support / defence to Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. It implies that it may do, it also implies that it may not do.

The Act states that 'The United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities'. This does not necessarily mean that the 7th Fleet will come steaming to the rescue and planes from Kadena and Guam will patrol the skies above Taiwan. It just means that the US agrees to make sure that Taiwan has enough capabilities to defend itself - this could mean anything from spare parts for the ROC Air Force's F16s to a full scale American military defence for Taiwan, but like I said, this is not necessarily the meaning. It's not clear and, after any resolution of the Korean question, the US may be wary of engaging China if it still has troops in Korea that it has agreed to withdraw to Japan - it would effectively be fighting a two-front war in Korea and over Taiwan and this would prove extremely unpopular with the American public; why risk the lives of their 'boys in Korea' when they were just about to get shipped out?

 

[RousseauX]

Does it? The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee that the US will provide military support / defence to Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. It implies that it may do, it also implies that it may not do.

The Act states that 'The United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities'. This does not necessarily mean that the 7th Fleet will come steaming to the rescue and planes from Kadena and Guam will patrol the skies above Taiwan. It just means that the US agrees to make sure that Taiwan has enough capabilities to defend itself - this could mean anything from spare parts for the ROC Air Force's F16s to a full scale American military defence for Taiwan, but like I said, this is not necessarily the meaning. It's not clear and, after any resolution of the Korean question,

It doesn't matter the exact text of the Taiwan relations act because diplomacy over multiple decades between the PRC and the US made the red lines for both sides really clear.

The red line for the PRC is a Taiwanese declaration of independence, the red line for the US is if the PRC invades Taiwan. If the US doesn't defend Taiwan then it's credibility with every single one of its allies goes out the window.

If it's 2060 or something and the situation has changed a lot I can see it, but if it's 2015 then yeah the US are gonna defend Taiwan.

the US may be wary of engaging China if it still has troops in Korea that it has agreed to withdraw to Japan - it would effectively be fighting a two-front war in Korea and over Taiwan and this would prove extremely unpopular with the American public; why risk the lives of their 'boys in Korea' when they were just about to get shipped out?

Errrr....why? The PLA can't amount an effective offensive operation vs the US in Korea because the PLA would get massacred against the US army unless zombie MacArthur was in charge or something.

The US then park a submarine or two in the Taiwanese strait and sends fighters over Taiwan itself.

What now

 

[adamu_kun]

Errrr....why? The PLA can't amount an effective offensive operation vs the US in Korea because the PLA would get massacred against the US army unless zombie MacArthur was in charge or something.

The US then park a submarine or two in the Taiwanese strait and sends fighters over Taiwan itself.

What now

The US only has 29,000 troops in South Korea. The only way it forms part of a credible ground defence against North Korea (other than technological advantage) is that it's integrated into South Korea's military defence. South Korean has about 3.5 million people in its military (including reserves), which makes a huge numerical advantage.

If the South Koreans are ambivalent about supporting the US against China and are more likely to play a neutral role / side with the Chinese, then the US is left with 29,000 troops to face however many hundreds of thousands the Chinese can and will throw in. Sure, the US can ship in more from Japan, but given that there are only 50,000 military personnel in Japan (across all military service branched) and the US has to get them into Korea to fight the PLA in the first place, China still has an overwhelming majority. Plus the Koreans may join in to get the US out and to fight against them for starting an unnecessary war against China on Korea's territory.

China is a couple of generations behind the US in terms of military tech (but is catching up), but makes up for it with numbers. Korea is on a par with the US. The US would struggle badly against the PLA in Korea with no Korean support and would be wiped out if Korea joins in on China's side.

With regards to Taiwan, Taiwan is not an ally of the US in the same way other allies are. Taiwan and the US do not have full diplomatic relations for starters and the US does have diplomatic relations with Beijing. I do not think that the US would risk a war with China over Taiwan if there was a precarious situation on the Korean peninsula that could really harm the US military stationed there and in Japan and, not only that, it would seriously harm relations between the US and Korea. Economically it would effectively put a stall on US economic relations with Korea and China, limiting the US's involvement in the region to Japan and various countries in various stages of development across SE Asia.

The US could defend Taiwan in this kind of scenario, but at the cost of its military in Korea. I don't think that the US would risk this, and it's not sending out any real message to other allies around the world, as with no diplomatic relations, the US can clearly state that Taiwan was never an ally, as it never was recognised as a country by the US.

I think that in any other situation, the US may defend Taiwan in some way, but not in a situation where it risks a good chunk of its military in Korea and Japan. Consider the following potential scenarios:

1. The US and SK are fighting North Korea in Korean War II, with no Chinese support of North Korea. China begins to invade Taiwan / bombard Taiwan - the US defends Taiwan.
2. The Korean peninsula maintains the status quo, but facing internal dissent / riots, China invades Taiwan to unite the nation - the US defends Taiwan.
3. Taiwan declares independence, gets invaded by China - the US defends Taiwan (provided status quo is maintained in Korea)

This is one of the reasons I think China has shown restraint over Taiwan. The only way it can conceivably pull off an invasion is if it is holding US forces hostage (effectively) in Korea, and it can only do that if the North falls, it has a military presence there and it has got South Korean even more onside (e.g. by promising to help rebuild and modernise the north). I would not be surprised if this is what China has been planning for.

 

[mlp]

I agree that there the centrists and right wingers in Japan will be shouting until they go blue in the face and the uyoko-dantai will be having a field day, but really, what can Japan do about it?

With China sitting in former North Korea and refusing to budge to allow reunification unless the US leaves makes me think that the US would have little option but to leave, no matter what Japan says.

Going into China's sphere of influence is not really a result of South Korea's hatred of Japan and in many ways, you could already argue that it is. South Korea often chimes in with China about Japan's refusal to offer an apology for what it got up to in the Pacific War, it already has a huge amount of trade with China and businesses in China; Koreans make up the largest overseas population in China. As well as this, Korea was historically close to China through the imperial tribute system. Finally, if China is offering to help modernise and rebuild North Korea, South Korea is not going to want to annoy them.

The US will have to leave or risk keeping a split Korean peninsula, risk having conflict with China and potentially a unified Korea and have to face the public at home who may not be supportive of continued US presence if it is only likely to lead to war. It's not like the US needs Korea for any raw materials or important trade routes.

South Korea needs China because getting closer to them is the only way to reunification. The US has no leverage over North Korea, China does.
And other than trade, that's the only reason. Why on earth would the "tribute system" be a reason.

 

[Count Valerian]

I agree that there the centrists and right wingers in Japan will be shouting until they go blue in the face and the uyoko-dantai will be having a field day, but really, what can Japan do about it?

Rearmament, even more so than is already happening.

 

[mlp]

Rearmament, even more so than is already happening.

Oh, so South Korea matters to Japan that much and they still want to play the dangerous game of historical revisionism?

 

[Count Valerian]

Oh, so South Korea matters to Japan that much and they still want to play the dangerous game of historical revisionism?

I don't support historical revisionism for personal reasons. Suffice to say that it would be hypocritical to the Filipino half of my bloodline. Anything more on that will go through PMs.

As for Korea, well it's not so much as Korea but China. If the reunified Korea stays out of the Chinese orbit - preferably within the American orbit - then things would still go on as they are. But if it falls into the Chinese orbit...well Article 9's amendment would be close to a done deal.

The Chinese hate us, the Koreans even more so...it's understandable why, but there's no reason for Japan to just leave itself open to continental revanchism. Japan might not build fleet carriers - so long as the US sticks around - but you'll definitely see cruise missiles being placed on Japanese warships, an expansion of the guided missile destroyer and submarine fleet (maybe even nuclear-powered hunter-killers), and possibly true light carriers.

On the bright side, no nuclear weapons. Apart from certain extremists, Japanese are the LAST people in the world who'd go for those things.

 

[mlp]

snip

Well, I'm surprised if the Japanese think the rise of China is a rise of the Empire of Japan ver. 2. Or perhaps that reflects their understanding of modern East Asian history.
As much as the Chinese seem aggressive and the South Koreans despise everything Japanese, it will never go beyond anything social, cultural or economic - both governments have too much vested interest in the economic status quo. And Japan is a vital part of that equation.
The worst that happened within China, for one, was Chongqing and other central Chinese cities kicking every Japanese - and, as a matter of fact, every foreign - company from their cities. Department stores were shut down, factories relocated to their respective nations of origin.
This is the worst that happened, and this is the worst that will happen. Do you still seriously believe the Chinese will risk going heads-on with the United States? Or do you doubt America's devotion to the safety of Japan?

 

[Count Valerian]

Do you still seriously believe the Chinese will risk going heads-on with the United States?

Yes, if they think they can knock us out quickly enough to bring us to heel before the US can reinforce their forces in Japan.

Or do you doubt America's devotion to the safety of Japan?

No, but we need to be able to defend ourselves as well. And if all of Korea is under Chinese influence...

 

[mlp]

Yes, if they think they can knock us out quickly enough to bring us to heel before the US can reinforce their forces in Japan.

No, but we need to be able to defend ourselves as well. And if all of Korea is under Chinese influence...

It seems you do not understand that either parties of any East Asian conflict does not want any high casualties, if any at all. I could reiterate that China isn't some monolithic force that is bent on forcing all of East Asia to be in its sphere of influence, but I don't think you'd believe me.
What I would say however is that the last time China had a major war was several decades ago and present conflicts such as the overall Syrian conflict or the Russo-Ukrainian war only occurred because they were 1) not regions of interest for the United States and 2) they were not exactly developed nations.
The only way China could "bring to heel" the American forces in Okinawa would be if they are all dead, and the US would sure as hell not stop with conventional weapons if that happens. And China knows this.

 

[Count Valerian]

Japanese Rearmament

It's a done deal anyway. It started with the establishment of the JSDF in 1954, and continues to this day. We already have a large fleet of guided missile destroyers and diesel-electric submarines, as well as three pseudo-light carriers. And that's just the navy...

...for all reasonable arguments against further/accelerated rearmament caused by a united Korea falling into the Chinese sphere, the Japanese people will not see it that way. They'll see the Americans being withdrawn from Korea, and they'll be hearing revanchism from much closer. And I'm not sorry to say, but the ones they'll likely be listening to will be the right. And the right will push through with further rearmament. And America will probably support it too: a strong non-nuclear proxy in the region is very advantageous for them.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

And America will probably support it too: a strong non-nuclear proxy in the region is very advantageous for them.

Well there's already a lobby in the States who want America to dramatically reduce the size of their military bases in Japan, if not remove them altogether - they figure it costs too much for too little return. So they'd be all in favour of more rearmament - bigger Japanese military means less need for American bases...

 

[mlp]

It's a done deal anyway. It started with the establishment of the JSDF in 1954, and continues to this day. We already have a large fleet of guided missile destroyers and diesel-electric submarines, as well as three pseudo-light carriers. And that's just the navy...

Did you just prove that Japanese militarism was due to itself and then point the finger towards China?

...for all reasonable arguments against further/accelerated rearmament caused by a united Korea falling into the Chinese sphere, the Japanese people will not see it that way. They'll see the Americans being withdrawn from Korea, and they'll be hearing revanchism from much closer. And I'm not sorry to say, but the ones they'll likely be listening to will be right. And the right will push through with further rearmament. And America will probably support it too: a strong non-nuclear proxy in the region is very advantageous for them.

So you agree there are reasonable arguments proving why China will not pursue such a path, and then subscribe yourself to the ones espousing conspiracy theories? And if the United States is serious in the belief that China is at a position to usurp its position to hegemony, then I'm sorry to say they aren't aware of how strong they are themselves.
As for Japan, well, it looks like they sure as hell want a war with China. Well good luck to them on that, because if Japan wants force America to go head-on with China they aren't going to do it for the sake of some alliance.

 

[Count Valerian]

Well there's already a lobby in the States who want America to dramatically reduce the size of their military bases in Japan, if not remove them altogether - they figure it costs too much for too little return. So they'd be all in favour of more rearmament - bigger Japanese military means less need for American bases...

In OTL that's just more fuel for the right. A lot of people protest the presence of US Forces Japan...but more see them as a deterrent to the continent. If they get reduced, and with China extremely vocal/obvious when flexing its muscles...

...in this scenario I doubt those lobbyists will get any support if the US is forced to withdraw from Korea...but knowledge of the existence of those people plus the American withdrawal from Korea just adds further support for the right.

 

[mlp]

Well there's already a lobby in the States who want America to dramatically reduce the size of their military bases in Japan, if not remove them altogether - they figure it costs too much for too little return. So they'd be all in favour of more rearmament - bigger Japanese military means less need for American bases...

This would be true, but I haven't heard of it. Maybe a source?

 

[Count Valerian]

Did you just prove that Japanese militarism was due to itself and then point the finger towards China?

So we're simply supposed to let those g*dd**n revanchists push us around? And the insane North Koreans...? To hell with them!

The Chinese only respect strength...Japan is strong. We will NOT be pushed around by revanchists, least of all Communists.

 

[mlp]

So we're simply supposed to let those g*dd**n revanchists push us around? And the insane North Koreans...? To hell with them!

The Chinese only respect strength...Japan is strong. We will NOT be pushed around by revanchists, least of all Communists.

Oh, so you as a Japanese national do want to militarise and somehow expect China to not respond to that?