The relevance of ADIZ

The need for ADIZ is not new and will grow in significance in a world when military might is the order of the day. The Americans and its allies have designated their ADIZs in many parts of their countries and dated to the early post WW2 years. The need for China to have its own ADIZ is not unfounded in view of its aggressive neighbours that it has disputes over sovereignty of islands and the military presence of the Americans in the region.

The offensive nature of military weapons like aircraft and their ability to launch an attack several hundred kilometers from the coastline makes an extended ADIZ into the sea more critical and necessary. No countries, not China or the USA or Japan would allow a potential enemy the free play to fly offensive military aircraft at a range that they can launch an attack on the country. How far is the comfort zone depends on many factors, the capability of the enemy’s equipment and weapon system, the scale of destruction it can cause, the speed they can launch an attack and also the systems and capability of the defending nation, among others. 

There is also the ‘fake’ psychological sense of vulnerability which is often used to bully weaker nations to accept an unreasonable claim of safety needs. This could be explained by what is safe to me is unsafe to the enemy or what is reasonable to me is unreasonable to the enemy.

In the China ADIZ, it is very reasonable to them but unreasonable to the Japanese and the Americans. Then why is the Japanese ADIZ reasonable to the Japanese and Americans and not to the Chinese when both extended to 130km of the other’s territory?

In the Cuba Crisis, the sense of security was extended to the placement of SAMs with nuclear capability in the island by the USSR. The Americans were willing to go to war if the Soviets did not remove the missiles. They imposed their right to their national security on the Cubans that they are not allowed to have missiles in their soil that can reach the USA and not vice versa.

This same outrageous claim of national security is extended by the Americans today to the whole world if they can blackmail or twist the arms of weaker nations to forbid them to have nuclear weapons. Only their allies, approved by the Americans, can possess nuclear weapons. My security is your insecurity. Other nations cannot possess the offensive weapons even when they are located across the other side of the earth from America. This is the extent of the American nuclear ADIZ equivalent. They forbid and attacked Iran and North Korea for wanting to have their own nuclear weapons. Is this reasonable?

Why would countries like China not be allowed to set up their own ADIZ but to allow its enemies to fly their offensive aircraft near their coasts that could easily turn around and do a pre emptive strike against them? And these ADIZ is just a short extension from their coasts? Why are the Americans allowed to claim insecurity when countries around the world want to possess nuclear weapons and be accused of being a threat to the Americans?

It is simply power play. The country that has the military power can bully those with less military power to do their bidding, to toe the line, to forgo their national security and allow the bully nation to trample all over them anywhere and anytime without protest.

When the Americans were able to fly their spy planes at a height that the USSR and China could not take them down, the Americans rudely and offensively flew over their territories to take photographs of their military installations and gathered whatever intelligence data they wished to have. Only when the USSR and China could shoot them down that the bullying stopped.

The Americans are using technology to spy on the rest of the world, including their friends, on the belief that they have superior technology and could not be found out. Not until a whistleblower blew their pants away.

It is all a game of bullying with the muscles of military power. China could only uphold its ADIZ if it is willing to confront the bullies head on and has the ability to do so. This is the only right, or wrong. Political power comes from the barrel of the gun. It is still true. The Americans and their allies have put up a military challenge and China either has to stand up or back down.

Any country that wants to have their own ADIZ must have the military muscle to keep the bullies and rascals out. It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is national security and dignity that must be defended by military prowess. Take them on and force them out or let them in. This is the same logic as acquiring nuclear weapons. Without the military strength to fight and resist the Americans, there will be no nuclear weapons without their approval.

The Americans have established a balance of power and status to their favours and to the insecurity and right to defence of other countries. They would walk along the corridors of other countries strutting their stuff, armed with the most formidable weapons they have to spite these countries. Any attempt by these countries to say no, to change the status quo is ‘wrong’ to the Americans and their allies. They only see the world in their tinted glasses, and their superiority and dominance and obnoxious rights cannot be challenged.

Who is talking about rights, and whose rights and interests should stay above others? An ADIZ is a defensive construct. Does China or any country have the right to its self defence, to protect itself from enemy intrusion and attacks? Why are the western countries and Japan allowed to have their ADIZ and not China? Why are the Americans and their allies allowed to possess WMD and others are not?