dani.tomic ::Hmmm da. Kada bi SAD povukle sve svoje baze iz regiona, Kinezi bi verovatno ukinuli i vojsku
Kakogod; svako ima pravo na svoje misljenje.
Ali, ako koza laze, rog ne laze: ovakav nastup Kine ne vidimo prema njenim susedima na severnim i zapadnim granicama (gde niko ne dovlaci vojnu masineriju u region i glumi gazdu). Naprotiv; tu su Rusija i Kina sporazumno demilitarizovale svoje pogranicne oblasti.
Dakle, zasto to isto Kina ne uradi i sa SAD?
Pa zato sto SAD nikada ne bi pristale da demilitarizuju tu oblast - hoce da su jedini "gazda".
Zato ovakvo ponasanje Kineza i vidimo samo na jugozapadu, gde SAD demonstriraju vojnu silu, dovlace tehniku u region, i hoce Kinu da "doteraju u red".
Uostalom, ovo su sve cinjenice, a zakljucke ima pravo da donese svako za sebe kakve god hoce.
Dopuna: 06 Maj 2016 4:29
Dani, naravno da je Nemezisov post povezan s temom, jer nam daje uvid u to kako se "miroljubivo" Amerika i Nato ponasaju i pridrzavaju ugovorenog.
Savrseno je prikladan za ovu temu.
Jest da imperija ili imerijalna sila lepo zvuci ali ne moze se reci da su i Kina i SAD imerijalne sile, moze se reci da su mozda obe svetsle ili regionalne ili nauce ali ne i imperijalne sile gledajuci danasnju politiku ove 2 zemlje.
Nisam mnogo pisao na ovoj temi ali je citam odavno i nisam bas puno puta nasao da se spominje Francuska ili Italija recimo. Mislim da je najverovatniji razlog njihov uticaj u ovom delu sveta ili na ovo pitanje, a time sto se na svakoj strani skoro u svakom postu spominje USA sticem utisak da su oni dosta aktivni na nekoliko nivoa u ovom pitanju, tj. pitanju kojim se bavi ova tema. Optuzivati da se svuda spominje USA jer se mrzi ili nesto slicno je poprilino smesno. Ne kazem da postoje osobe koje mrze ono sto USA prestavlja danas ali to je posledica njihove politike i stavova koje imaju u medjunarodnoj politici. Ono sto je nepobitno je da je USA na mnogo nivoa ukljucena u ovom delu sveta, ne samo ekonomski vec i vojno, jer na kraju krajeva postoji vojna sila koja prestavlja interese USA vezano za resavanje ovog pitanja i samo njihovo prisustvo izaziva reakciju druge strane. Ne mozete vi recimo da analizirate kretanje vojne sile jedne strane ako ne analizirate i ono sto je dovelo do tog kretanja, izmedju ostalog i akcije druge, zavadjene strane. Recimo da postoji neko ko se bavi 1945. godinom i u naucnom delu izjavi da je SSSR izvrsio invaziju na Nemacku i kao dokaz iznese nebrojeno dokumenata koje dokazuju da su milioni Rusa sa vojnom tehnikom dosli do granice Nemacke i usle u nju. Isti slucaj je i sto se tice Kine i pitanje vlasnistva na spornim teritorijama, odgovor Kine je uslovljen postupcima druge strane, kao sto je i odgovor druge strane uslovljen postupcima Kine. Ne zelim da ulazim u raspravu o pravima jednih ili drugih vec samo isticem gresku u razmisljanju.
Takodje iako Nemesis spominje stvari koje nemaju veze sa temom on nam donosi i pokusava da pokaze obrazac ponasanja. Recimo da smo u 1940.-oj i da se tema bavi potencijalnom invazijom Nemacke na Poljsku jer su Nemci doveli vojsku na granicu sa Poljskom i da neki ucesnik diskusije kaze da postoji ogromna sansa za invaziju jer je Nemacka napala Norvesku da li bi mu ijedan ucesnik disusije na forumu rekao da njegov post nema veze sa temom?
Postoji objasnjenje za vase ponasanje i razmisljanje, ali da ne idemo u psihologiju kao off. Moje prosto pitanje je bilo: Kakve veze ima neko zamisljeno raspustanje NATO pakta nakon pada SSSR sa temom o kineskim sporovima oko teritorijalnih voda? Toliko je prosto, da bi shvatilo i dete u obdanistu
Na Filipinima na izborima upravo pobedjuje kandidat koji po nastupima u javnosti i komentarima u javnosti sa obe strane ukrajinskog zida podseca na Huga Caveza.
Citat:The missile, dubbed the “Guam Killer” or “Guam Express,” has a range of 3,000–4,000 kilometers with nuclear, conventional and anti-ship variants. The missile features a new “modular design” that allows for interchangeability: The launch vehicle can be fitted with “two types of nuclear warhead and several types of conventional warhead which use different destructive mechanisms to attack specific targets,” Wilson wrote.
The other ASBM of concern is the DF-21D, dubbed the “carrier killer.” But its range is only 1,500 kilometers, which is too short a distance to threaten Guam. However, the DF-21D is armed with a maneuverable warhead, “providing China with the ability to hold at risk U.S. Navy aircraft carriers operating east of Taiwan from sites on the Chinese mainland,” he wrote.
The introduction of the DF-21D in 2010 forced U.S. naval ships to operate from greater distances in a Taiwan scenario, and now with the DF-26, Guam is no longer a safe haven for U.S. fighter and bomber aircraft.
Cruise missiles also play an important part in China’s efforts to hold Guam at risk, Wilson wrote.
The first is air-launched LACMs, such as the new 1,500 kilometer range CJ-20 LACM, which can perform precision strikes launched from upgraded variants of the H-6K medium-range bomber. The H-6K combat radius is 3,500 kilometers and can carry six CJ-20 LACMs. There are currently 36 H-6K bombers deployed as of 2015. Wilson wrote that in November 2015, during a training mission, four H-6K bombers broke off from four others west of Okinawa and flew 1,000 kilometers past the first island chain in a likely “simulated attack on Guam.”
The second is the new air-launched, supersonic YJ-12 ASCM, with a 215 nautical mile range, also capable of being launched from the H-6K bomber. The YJ-12 is capable of evasive maneuvers that pose “immense challenges for shipboard defenses.” With the H-6K, the missile can reach targets around Guam, and Wilson quotes Robert Haddick, an independent contractor at US Special Operations Command, who called it in 2014 “the most dangerous antiship missile China has produced thus far.”
The third is an unidentified sea-launched LACM being developed for forthcoming Type 095 nuclear-powered attack submarines and the new Luyang-III guided-missile destroyers that will bring Guam within reach.
The last is the new YJ-18 ASCM being deployed on the Luyang III. It's also likely to be deployed on the Song, Yuan, and Shang-class submarines, as well as Type 095 submarines and Type 055 guided-missile destroyers.
Predlozene kontramere
Citat:Wilson outlined several recommendations:
Harden facilities on Guam to disincentive a first strike (though this approach is expensive and China could counter with a further buildup of its missile arsenal).
Disperse US regional military facilities throughout Asia, forcing China to direct missile strikes at more targets.
Invest in new missile defense capabilities such as the next-generation missile defense initiatives that include directed energy and rail gun technologies. While Guam is currently protected by Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3), they are there to protect Guam from less sophisticated North Korean missile systems, not Chinese missiles equipped with maneuverable warheads and supersonic, final-stage strikes designed to defeat THAAD and PAC-3.
Revisit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty since China is not a signatory and Russia is said to be in violation of the agreement. The US is prevented by the INF Treaty from developing low-cost, land-based, theater-range conventional missiles or “altering it to allow ground-based theater-range deployments only in Asia; this proposed revision theoretical would allow the United States to deploy its own inexpensive ground-based conventional missiles, or could incentivize China to join a wider INF Treaty and reduce its missile deployments,” Wilson wrote.
”Američki avion je bezazleno njuškao oko kineske vojne baze u međunarodnom vazdušnom i pomorskom prostoru, kada se ničim izazvano desilo nebezbedno presretanje od strane kineskih lovaca ”
” 
