this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
54 points (93.5% liked)

World News

32370 readers
677 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This is probably relevant:

Japan says China airspace incursion ‘serious violation of our sovereignty’

Japan wouldn't be interested in an increased US military presence if they weren't feeling threatened by their aggressive neighbor.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

See the map at the bottom of this article: https://www.newsweek.com/china-responds-japan-airspace-violation-danjo-islands-1944781

The plane circled over an area near the islands, then dipped a toe into Japanese airspace. China says it was unintentional.

Responding with an escalation of missile deployments is not exactly proportional. Escalation in general is a very risky thing and doing so casually is reckless and can get people killed.

[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

China is full of shit about it being unintentional, they've been playing grey zone games for quite a few years now and the nations around them have caught on. I'd argue missile deployment is exactly proportional to an unplanned breach of airspace by a military asset. It's historically a pretty good idea to build up your defense when a neighbor is brandishing their military on your borders

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the person above you seems to be ignoring the fact that them breaching their air space for the first time is an escalation, not to mention China has generally been escalating it's rhetoric recently.

It could be argued that China is feeling pressured to escalate (due to external events or US escalating trade/policy stances), but threatening a missile system is more signaling "keep this up and we'll respond".

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the person above you seems to be ignoring the fact that them breaching their air space for the first time is an escalation, not to mention China has generally been escalating it's rhetoric recently.

Surely this makes offensive missiles designed for nukes a proportional response to a plane with no weapons briefly dipping a toe into Japanese airspace over ocean on one of its several circles.

I haven't ignored anything, I'm just aware of how absurd this is. No one saying this is a reasonable response can claim to care about escalation.

It could be argued that China is feeling pressured to escalate (due to external events or US escalating trade/policy stances), but threatening a missile system is more signaling "keep this up and we'll respond".

By nuking them?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just because a weapons platform is capable of using nuclear warheads doesn't mean we are going to hand said warheads over. The system has plenty of conventional warheads. Deployment of a weapons system as a deterrent is proportional.

You're spreading Chinese lies.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just because a weapons platform is capable of using nuclear warheads doesn't mean we are going to hand said warheads over. The system has plenty of conventional warheads.

The weapons system was prohibited specifically because of its use with nuclear weapons. This is its distinguishing feature. This is the "message" being sent, though it also isn't just a message because it is an actual offensive weapon.

Deployment of a weapons system as a deterrent is proportional.

It is obviously not.

You're spreading Chinese lies.

I am? Which ones? Are Chinese lies a special kind?

Sounds to me like you are flirting with xenophobia.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

In the context of this particular discussion, China = The CCP ≠ The Chinese people.

As far as which one are lies? Your entire post history is nothing but Chinese propaganda and lies.

It's not xenophobic to call out CCP bullshit like the shit you are spouting. That's called being a good human.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In the context of this particular discussion, China = The CCP ≠ The Chinese people.

I dunno, I think Chinese means Chinese. It sounds like you just throw this around as an epithet and it is sinophobic. Please do some reflection on whether you are okay with xenophobia.

As far as which one are lies? Your entire post history is nothing but Chinese propaganda and lies.

Name one from this comment chain.

It's not xenophobic to call out CCP bullshit like the shit you are spouting.

Such as?

That's called being a good human.

I don't think it's good human behavior to use xenophobic rhetoric.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A plane with no weapons circled near some islands and dipped a toe into a tiny sliver of Japanese airspace - over water - in a single pass. Check the map.

China is full of shit about it being unintentional, they've been playing grey zone games for quite a few years now and the nations around them have caught on.

Your intellectual insight is to claim that this flight path was entirely designed around that one pass entering Japanese airspace? Perhaps you can share your spy recordings where they say, "surely this is how we will advance our cause".

I'd argue missile deployment is exactly proportional to an unplanned breach of airspace by a military asset.

That flight path with a toe dip into airspace over ocean vs. missiles designed to carry nukes. Do you not understand the difference between offensive nuclear weapons and maybe hearing a plane flying offshore?

It's historically a pretty good idea to build up your defense when a neighbor is brandishing their military on your borders

Are you afraid of that plane and its flight path? You're using language as if it is a weapon and threat.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

They don't have to pay for it and in a rapidly aging country with a very low birth rate they may not have enough people of military age to put together an army at this point.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

Sorry but based on the Nippon Steel controversy we cannot trust Japan with a steel company so therefore we cannot trust them with advanced missile tech.