The hated Far East rivals on WW3 collision course: How China and Japan could become new global flash point as Beijing warns of 'crushing' defeat and Tokyo mulls nuke options in row over Taiwan and disputed isles

The ancient enmity between China and Japan has erupted into one of the most dangerous faceoffs in the Asia-Pacific in decades, with Tokyo openly threatening Beijing with military action if it invades Taiwan.

It is believed that the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has ordered his forces to be ready to seize the island by 2027 and is now warning Tokyo would 'bear all consequences' if it dares to get in the way.

Officials from the two sides have since traded barbs, with one from China warning of decapitating 'dirty necks', seen as a direct threat to Japan's prime minister, Sanae Takaichi.

The war of words suddenly moved much closer to the brink this week when Japan scrambled fighter jets after spotting what it said was a Chinese military drone near Yonaguni, its southernmost island, just a short distance from Taiwan's east coast.

At the same time, a formation of Chinese coast guard vessels sailed for hours through waters around the Senkaku Islands, a chain controlled by Japan but claimed by China, prompting furious protests from Tokyo.

Analysts say the timing is no accident - the incursions came days after Japan's new leader, hardline conservative Takaichi, told parliament that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could amount to a 'survival-threatening situation' for Japan and might trigger a military response.

The 'survival-threatening' line is enshrined in Japan's security law, and it means an attack on its allies is seen as a direct threat against the country.

In response, China's defence minister, Jiang Bin, issued a stark warning, saying: ' Should the Japanese side fail to draw lessons from history and dare to take a risk, or even use force to interfere in the Taiwan question, it will only suffer a crushing defeat against the steel-willed People's Liberation Army and pay a heavy price.'

Great question. There’s no obvious “clean” dictionary definition for *“dirty necks”* in this diplomatic usage, but here’s an analysis of what the phrase likely means — plus some possible cultural connotations.

## What “dirty necks” likely means in this context

1. **Metaphorical Insult / Dehumanization**

* According to a *Taipei Times* editorial, the phrase comes from a post by Chinese Consul General *Xue Jian* telling Japanese PM **Sanae Takaichi** that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” ([Taipei Times][1])
* The word “dirty” here is not literal; it’s being used as a strong insult or demeaning slur. It suggests that the “dirty neck” (i.e., Takaichi or, by extension, Japan) is impure, unclean, or problematic — making the threat more visceral and dehumanizing.

2. **Potential Historical or Cultural Echoes**

* There is a *Taipei Times* editorial titled **“Dirty necks, dangerous diplomacy”** that frames this as **violent and personal intimidation**. ([Taipei Times][1])
* The phrase may also echo a broader racist or demeaning trope. For example, there’s a Wikipedia page on a racist chant: *“Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees”*. ([Wikipedia][2])

* That chant uses “dirty knees” as a derogatory, dehumanizing insult. While “dirty necks” is not identical, it may evoke similar demeaning imagery or in-group/out-group hostility.

3. **Slang History of “Dirty Neck”**

* According to *Green’s Dictionary of Slang*, “dirty neck” has been used as a derogatory term in English slang. ([Green’s Dictionary of Slang][3])

* In WWI-era U.S. slang, it referred to a “promiscuous woman” (“a general term of abuse”). ([Green’s Dictionary of Slang][3])
* That’s not necessarily the same meaning here, but it shows the phrase “dirty neck” has historically carried negative, demeaning connotations.

4. **Diplomatic/Political Threat**

* Combining the insult with “must be cut off” makes this not just verbal abuse, but a *threat of violence or political assassination*. The context is diplomatic — not street slang — which makes the choice of words more alarming and serious.

## Interpretation & Implications

* **Dehumanizing Language**: The phrase is likely meant to dehumanize or degrade the target (“dirty necks”) to justify or normalize a violent threat.
* **Diplomatic Escalation**: Because it comes from a diplomat, it’s not just vulgar — it’s a *political statement* coupled with a threat (”cut off”), which significantly escalates the rhetoric.
* **Cultural Resonance**: There may be layers of historical prejudice or cultural insult embedded, especially if “dirty necks” evokes past racist chants or racist imagery.
* **Violent Intent**: The explicit “cut off” component makes this a literal threat to decapitate or neutralize the target, which is extremely provocative in international relations.

### Possible Counter-Meanings / Alternatives

* It *could* be purely rhetorical or hyperbolic: the diplomat may be using violent language as metaphor or intimidation rather than literal intent. However, given the context and the strong wording, many interpret it as a true threat.
* The phrase could be a translation or paraphrase. The original Chinese wording (if any) might carry different connotations, but the English version is clearly sharp and hostile.

### Bottom Line

**“Dirty necks”** here is a **derogatory insult** used by a Chinese diplomat to demean and dehumanize Japanese leadership (or Japan more broadly), combined with a call for violence (“must be cut off”). It’s not just an insult — it’s *weaponized language* in a diplomatic and geopolitical context.

Oddly Japan would be wise to develop nuclear bombs as should Taiwan. Neither could defeat China in conventional war nor nuclear war. However, both with nuclear weapons could inflict such massive damage on China that war would be unacceptable to China and probably cause the collapse of China’s government.

This is the same logic of France and the UK. They have a very potent by small number of deliverable nuclear weapons. The UK has four nuclear-armed submarines (Vanguard-class), while France has four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (Triomphant-class)
as part of its larger fleet of nine nuclear submarines. The UK has a total stockpile of about 225 warheads, while France’s arsenal is larger, with approximately 290 warheads, the majority of which are deployed on submarines.

However, enough to make Russia an non functioning society that would break apart as would China also.

Oddly we have not had World Wars in 80 years and this is due to nuclear weapons and MAD logic. “Mutually Assured Destruction.” MAD works with logical opponents. It does not work with the insane mullahs of Iran.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.