It seems to me that China has a right to prevent unauthorised use of its own airspace; the question is, does its airspace extend as far up as LEO? Does anyone know what international law says on this? At some point, since control can now apparently be enforced that far up, the airspace definition may have to be extended. De jure sovereignty should follow the de facto enforcement.
Supposing that this was in fact illegal in international law, that is, if orbit is considered to be 'international waters' where anyone has the right to go, it seems to me that this is an act of war. If so, what kind of retaliation might the US go to?
[ September 29, 2006, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Might want to fix your link....you pasted in the http://
My gut reaction is that this is ok for them to do. If China had satellites spying on the U.S.A. I would fully expect us to attempt to disable them. I would hope that the nature of orbit airspace rights would be clarified however, so that any misunderstandings can be addressed before they grow.
Edit: The espoinage is another matter entirely.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
linkie no workie
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
None. We'll just seek to harden our satellites so that a laser can't hurt them. We should be doing this anyway becuase in a war with a space faring nation, our sattelites will be a hot target. Without them, our smart bombs don't work.
It takes a hell of a lot to provoke us into war. Especially with a major trading partner... with 4 times our population... and nukes.
Pix
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Hmm, maybe we should just do some quick tactical strikes against the offending lasers. Hey, it works for third world countries, why not a second world one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Would it be possible to simply put a concave mirrior in front of the lense that would bounce the laser back and allow the satelite to continue its surveilance?
Or am I missing the principle that these lasers operate on?
I'm impressed with Chinese ingenuity in this regard. Though I do think some sort of redefinition of what sovereignty means would be appropriate.
Ill just wait for Blayne to make his post before saying anything else,
but I couldnt resist the following:
ZOMG LASERZ PEW PEW PEW!!!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ill just wait for Blayne to make his post before saying anything else
I must resist commenting....must resist teasing Blayne, must resist...
As an aside, reading the article you posted, I thought sha shou meant murderer, not assassin. Errr, might be xiong shou I'm thinking of or sha ren zhe. Crap. So what are you doing to keep up on your Chinese?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ill just wait for Blayne to make his post before saying anything else
I must resist commenting....must resist teasing Blayne, must resist...
As an aside, reading the article you posted, I thought sha shou meant murderer, not assassin. Errr, might be xiong shou I'm thinking of or sha ren zhe. Crap. So what are you doing to keep up on your Chinese?
Summer Chinese class at BYU, a South East Asia history course this semester with a teacher who speaks fluent Chinese, the occasional conversation with my father, there are Chinese guildies in my WOW guild that I speak to exclusively in Chinese.
I plan on working as an analyst for the government that should give me the means to bolster my language in the future. But even with all that, I can still feel my Chinese leaving me
As for Sha Shou Jian
Not being able to see the characters makes it purely speculative as to meaning
It could mean, "Killers Sword"
"Killing Hand's Sword"
Assassin's Mace seems off to me.
Assassin should be "An(4) Sha(1)" or "Ci(4) Ke(4)"
Edit:I really dont know where they are getting mace from. Chui would be the most likely used word for mace.
Gun(4) or Bang(4) are the words for club, so I really dont see the mace the writer is suggesting, Ill see if I can find the exact phrase in character form.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
sorry for double posting but this is for Bao as well
Sha Ren Zhe could easily mean "Killer Ninja"
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I would have to say the legality of the situation is pretty much nonexistant. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't really been any settled agreements on space rights (could be wrong here) and seeing how murky terrestrial international law is I don't have much in the way of high hopes for orbital international law. That being said, issues like this definately support that official decisions on matters like this need to be made.
Really this isn't that new a concept, just an extension of an old one. For years there have been some leaks on the orbits of various surveilance satellites that have allowed those who don't wish to be seen to just step inside for a few minutes etc...
As for how to combat this, I'm sure it's already being worked on, and probably already instituted on some satellites up there. And to be honest I'm doubtful that they can completely disrupt the satellite performance, the accuracies involved are pretty staggering. That being said, it's certainly possible in any number of situations to "jam" some satellite capabilities, whether they be LEO keyhole spy satellites or GEO phone satellites.
and it's comepletely off-topic, but BQT just reminded me of the story of (a horribly misspelled) Rikki Tikki Tembo No Sa Rembo Chari Bari Ruchi Pip Perry Pembo. Anyone else heard of it? it's a fun chinese children's story.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I would have to say the legality of the situation is pretty much nonexistant. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't really been any settled agreements on space rights (could be wrong here) and seeing how murky terrestrial international law is I don't have much in the way of high hopes for orbital international law. That being said, issues like this definately support that official decisions on matters like this need to be made.
Really this isn't that new a concept, just an extension of an old one. For years there have been some leaks on the orbits of various surveilance satellites that have allowed those who don't wish to be seen to just step inside for a few minutes etc...
As for how to combat this, I'm sure it's already being worked on, and probably already instituted on some satellites up there. And to be honest I'm doubtful that they can completely disrupt the satellite performance, the accuracies involved are pretty staggering. That being said, it's certainly possible in any number of situations to "jam" some satellite capabilities, whether they be LEO keyhole spy satellites or GEO phone satellites.
and it's comepletely off-topic, but BQT just reminded me of the story of (a horribly misspelled) Rikki Tikki Tembo No Sa Rembo Chari Bari Ruchi Pip Perry Pembo. Anyone else heard of it? it's a fun chinese children's story.
Of course not! And my fear of wells is in NO part due to this book!
To be accurate its a "Book About Chinese Children" Not a "Chinese Childrens Book." A non Chinese author wrote it, and the Chinese probably do not know about it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I loved that book when I was little!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(I thought it was Tikki Tikki Tambo, though.)
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
like I said, "horribly misspelled" and thanks for the clarification blackblade (it's been many years since I've seen a copy of the book, so...)
just one of those odd things that I can still remember that name (in that I learned the name before I could spell)
=p
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I hope imogen will comment.
Briefly, based solely on Google searches, so I have Outer Space Treaty, 98 ratifications and 27 signatures, "outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." China has acceded to this treaty.
Ketchupqueen: I checked Amazon, you are right its "Tikki Tikki...." and to think I held THAT misconception for so long!
I always liked his younger brothers name "Chang."
Also sorry to ruin the book but:
None Tikki Tikki's names are remotely Chinese, not even the sylabbles with the exception of "ru."
And they don't give their first born sons super long names, and subsequent ones small names. They just don't. ;p
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it is acceptable for the PRC to attack and damage American property in orbit above the Earth from within the PRC, is it acceptable for the United States to attack and damage PRC property in the PRC from orbit?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It depends. Acceptable to China, or acceptable to me?
I'd like to think they're lasers didn't work and we're just letting them think we did.
I don't think that, but I'd like to.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
China according to US intelligent services is classified a "hard target" basically next to impossible to gain any worthwhile intelligence from. However because the USA is a much more open society and practically publish everything its significantly easier to spy on America so its quite possible what you say but its also quite possible that its a game of double feint of a double feint. Simplest thing to assume that the US is saying the truth in that the PRC is successful in Jamming US spy satalleits above orbit.
Remeber that back in teh cold war when the US sent spy satallaits above the USSR the USSR didnt react only because of 2 reasons A) The US would not be able to complain if the USSR did likewise and besides the Russians were amazing at hiding anything smaller then a couple of football fields (I'll assume Tom Clancy is telling the truth (from TBATD) that the Russian defence installations aka petroluem for militayr use the US still doesnt know theyre exact location today)
and B) because itld be overreacting the Soviet Union had maintained a policy of not overeacting to prevent a nuclear war even going as far as to ignore attacks on soviet shipping (source Noam Chanski).
As for the fallacy of suggesting that protecting a nations soverign territorial rights somehow equate s the right to deny thso esame rights in reverse is quite simply asinine.
The right to in a non destructive way to defend your nation from ariel recon DOES NOT equate the right to blow up the means of a nation to defend themsleves with and constitutes a casus beli, it simply means that a weapon in the USAF's inventory is now next to useless and your gonna have to spend you 500,000,000,000$ budget on coming up with another creative system of destorying a countries infastructure which the people of said nation depend on to survive.
Frankly, if the PRC have satalleits spying on the USA military bases would the USA as mentioned earlier not seek similar methods in a non destructive way to render such means useless if they could? I frankly think the US never bothered to do so before because it was a nice arrangement they had worked out with the SSSR which of wait you never had such an informal agreement with them so i geuss its uselsss to complain. Sucks when a nation has the means to defend itself from the pedos in the world.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is disturbing. Plus the fact that it has been covered up, although I can understand the reasons.
Mmmm...
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Noam Chanski
That's a heck of a source. Is that a real person? Did you mean Noam Chomsky?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The right to in a non destructive way to defend your nation from ariel recon
It was hardly nondestructive.
quote: if the PRC have satalleits spying on the USA military bases
They do.
quote:As for the fallacy of suggesting that protecting a nations soverign territorial rights somehow equate s the right to deny thso esame rights in reverse is quite simply asinine.
Did you intend this to mean something relevant to the conversation?
It's almost certain that, under treaties to which China is a party, they attacked U.S. property outside China's sovereign territory.
quote:Sucks when a nation has the means to defend itself from the pedos in the world.
Do you think before you write this stuff?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee, while I agree on the absurdity of Blayne's overall arguments, some points.
It certainly seems nondestructive; every article I've read mentions the ability of the satellite to observe is only impaired by the laser beam, and that the satellites continue to operate just fine when they've passed over China.
Also, the notion of this being an attack is somewhat difficult. If I shine a big spotlight at someone using binoculars to look at what I'm doing, I'm not attacking them. Particularly so if the looking with the binoculars is legally problematic in the first place. This situation does map remarkably well onto that. For instance, if our spy satellites aren't part of our registry under that same treaty, other states are empowered to return them.
In fact, the treaty only makes those spy satellites under US sovereignty if on our registry:
quote:A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body.
On a more amusing note, there's a non-binding resolution on remote-sensing that says
quote:As soon as the primary data and the processed data concerning the territory under its jurisdiction are produced, the sensed State shall have access to them on a non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable cost terms. The sensed State shall also have access to the available analysed information concerning the territory under its jurisdiction in the possession of any State participating in remote sensing activities on the same basis and terms, taking particularly into account the needs and interests of the developing countries.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
By convention, airspace does not extend up to orbit. Good thing, too. If it did we'd have to get permission of scores of countries for every satellite.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Russell, which treaty are you referring to? The Outer Space Treaty of 1967?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, the same one Dagonee mentioned.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It certainly seems nondestructive; every article I've read mentions the ability of the satellite to observe is only impaired by the laser beam, and that the satellites continue to operate just fine when they've passed over China.
The only one I read implied - without stating so - that the damage was permanent. I should have found a more explicit article.
Thanks for the other info.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I've read different sources, some that say the damage is permanant, some say temporary. The truth may be classified.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If anything the USAF should be thanking the Chinese, realistically speaking if this does supremely affect your smart bombs weapons systems it just may give the egg heads some time to come up with a new wepons system siunce the PLA seems to have tppied its hand, frankly I'm surprised that the Assasins Mace actually exists a US Navy Colonel spoke of it as an exmaple why US navy carrier strategy was "doomed" but me and the tohers from Sinodefence were skeptical.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So who and what exactly are 'the pedos', Blayne?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
pedo <- perv <- voyeur
When kinkiness is considered as merely normal, 'pervert' and 'voyeur' just don't carry the moral condemnation that they used to.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It certainly seems nondestructive; every article I've read mentions the ability of the satellite to observe is only impaired by the laser beam, and that the satellites continue to operate just fine when they've passed over China.
The only one I read implied - without stating so - that the damage was permanent. I should have found a more explicit article.
Thanks for the other info.
Well, from the OP:
quote: Although the Chinese tests do not aim to destroy American satellites, the laser attacks could make them useless over Chinese territory.
But in any case, the US hasn't exactly been big on international law, so why would China have to follow it to the letter when dealing with the US? Additionally, if the US government isn't willing to make a big issue out of it anyways, what is the problem?
In the end, both governments know the real score. China tries to spy on the US, the US tries to stop them. The US tries to spy on China, the Chinese try to stop them. Does anyone have any doubt that if positions were reversed, the American government would do exactly the same?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think many people would agree with you, aspectre, that the label 'pedophile' doesn't carry moral condemnation weight.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But in any case, the US hasn't exactly been big on international law, so why would China have to follow it to the letter when dealing with the US?
I'm not interested in getting dragged down into a lengthy discussion about this-happens all the time-but I'd like to point out that there are two parties in that question which are frequent violators of international law.
The People's Republic of China is not known for its respect for international law, as your question potentially (but not necessarily) implies.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
My point was, Rakeesh, that 'child molester' is one of the few epithets left which universally conveys detestation.
Nowadays, anybody who objects to a government playing peeping tom is accused of being in favor of terrorism, and anyone who finds corporate voyeurs to be offensive is accused of being paranoid.
[ September 30, 2006, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The US tries to spy on China, the Chinese try to stop them. Does anyone have any doubt that if positions were reversed, the American government would do exactly the same?
Why do you think the positions aren't reversed. The Chinese HAVE spy satellites.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'd like to point out that there are two parties in that question which are frequent violators of international law.
Ok then.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The US tries to spy on China, the Chinese try to stop them. Does anyone have any doubt that if positions were reversed, the American government would do exactly the same?
Why do you think the positions aren't reversed. The Chinese HAVE spy satellites.
I sort of meant on a more broader scale. That is, if the Chinese military budget was larger than the military budgets of the next five nations combined, if the Chinese military was unilaterally invading Iraq and making noises about Iran, if China was the pre-eminent world superpower and viewed the US as a growing military threat, and if China was making alliances with India and Japan in order to contain US interests.
If the situation were truly reversed, would the US stick to the letter of international law and not seek to discourage Chinese spying on US soil, especially if the Chinese government was ok with it? I kinda doubt it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:unilaterally invading Iraq
First, in the strictly present tense, we are in Iraq at the express request of the internationally recognized government of Iraq.
Second, the invasion wasn't "unilateral."
quote:If the situation were truly reversed, would the US stick to the letter of international law and not seek to discourage Chinese spying on US soil...
Why would we be more inclined to do it then as opposed to now?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That is, if the Chinese military budget was larger than the military budgets of the next five nations combined...
Gettin' there.
quote:...if the Chinese military was unilaterally invading Iraq and making noises about Iran...
The PRC has done some lovely invading on even slimmer pretexts than the United States in Iraq, and is always making noises about Taiwan.
quote:and if China was making alliances with India and Japan in order to contain US interests.
What, we're making alliances with Japan and India against their will?
Your 'broader scale' seems to have a pretty myopic vision.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and Dagonee, you don't get to say it wasn't unilateral. It was practically unilateral, which is just as good.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ill clarify I considered US foreign policy ever since the coup d'etate of democratic socialist president of guatemala and ever sicne then to be the acts on an international stage not disimilar toa pedophile.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also China's so called "invasion" of other countries is flat out incorrect, it was the USSR that provoked the skirmishes along the Russian-Chinese border (as can be confirmed in Henry Kissinger's autobiography) , Vietnam was because of the Russian-Sino Split China had hoped to teach Vietnam a lession for attacking Cambodia and to test Russian resolve and if Russia used its position in the Comintern to attack China then they might be able to form a coalition with the US to defeat the Russians (a very lliely possibility, Reagan is a very good precedent of the US aiding the Chinese when it suited US interests).
Taiwan is sovereign Chinese territory neither the PRC or ROC have renounced claims onto it since WWII and as such since the PRC is the vald successor state of the ROC gains all of its claims and respnsibilities according to international law tha makes Taiwan officially a part of "China" and in this case it is the PRC and the "ROC" are simply the vanquished side from the Chinese civil war, every single major nation recognizes that there can only be One China, while the US has promised to protect Taiwan in case of attack it nonetheless does not equal a rejection of Chinese claims on the Island.
China may be making noises yes but can you blame them with Chen as the president of Taiwan? Breaking a number of agreements the previous President from the KMT made wih the mainland? Even Bush has critisized Chen for going against the status quo which both the PRC and the ROC have informally agreed two.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, and Dagonee, you don't get to say it wasn't unilateral. It was practically unilateral, which is just as good.
Huh?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Also China's so called "invasion" of other countries is flat out incorrect,
What about the Chinese invasion of Tibet? Is that "so-called"? For someone who is fascinated by China you don't seem to know much about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: First, in the strictly present tense, we are in Iraq at the express request of the internationally recognized government of Iraq. Second, the invasion wasn't "unilateral." ...Why would we be more inclined to do it then as opposed to now?
Did I ever mention that I was talking in the strictly present tence? Not so much. Besides, are you seriously putting forth the proposition that the invasion was agreed to by the international community?
Because if the situation was actually reversed, and if the US was the underdog and felt threatened by a superpower China, it is not hard to see that the US would feel that it would want to hide some of its cards. Additionally, I might point out that the US programme of developing, if not necessarily using anti-satellite weapons is well documented.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That is, if the Chinese military budget was larger than the military budgets of the next five nations combined...
Gettin' there.
Actually, I was kinda incorrect. According to the CIA, which could be wrong, since you know...US intel is not the most accurate when it comes to measuring stuff that includes WMDs https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html The US military budget is not larger than just the next five nations, but at least the next forty nations. But thanks for playing.
quote:The PRC has done some lovely invading on even slimmer pretexts than the United States in Iraq, and is always making noises about Taiwan.
Not sure what your argument is here. China doesn't have to feel threatened by the US because both of them have been in the invading business?
quote:What, we're making alliances with Japan and India against their will?
Who said anything about against their will? I mentioned Japan and India, not like Pakistan or something Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Besides, are you seriously putting forth the proposition that the invasion was agreed to by the international community?
Did I say that? No, I didn't.
quote:Because if the situation was actually reversed, and if the US was the underdog and felt threatened by a superpower China, it is not hard to see that the US would feel that it would want to hide some of its cards.
I'd still like to know why you think they would operate differently than now. Presumably, we'd like to hide some cards now, right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee, I was just making a joke about one of the more common assertions put forth by critics of the Bush Administration, that the war was 'unilateral'-now Mucus has shifted to equating 'unilateral' with 'not agreed to by the international community'.
quote:The US military budget is not larger than just the next five nations, but at least the next forty nations. But thanks for playing.
The funny thing is, you think you just scored a point on me, Mucus. But you didn't. I correctly pointed out that in recent years, the military budget of the PRC has been under constant expansion, with a recent doubling and annual 10% growth according to some sources.
quote:Not sure what your argument is here. China doesn't have to feel threatened by the US because both of them have been in the invading business?
Oh, I see now. You didn't get my point because you didn't read my posts very well, if at all.
quote:...but I'd like to point out that there are two parties in that question which are frequent violators of international law.
The People's Republic of China is not known for its respect for international law, as your question potentially (but not necessarily) implies.
Remember where I said that?
quote:Who said anything about against their will? I mentioned Japan and India, not like Pakistan or something
Ohh, clever! Let's just ignore the part where India and Japan want the United States as their allies, because of their neighbor who is afraid of the big, bad, US.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne Bradley,
quote:Ill clarify I considered US foreign policy ever since the coup d'etate of democratic socialist president of guatemala and ever sicne then to be the acts on an international stage not disimilar toa pedophile.
Despite being as difficult to parse as ever, I think I understand what you're saying. You're suggesting that since the removal of the President of Guatemala and acts on the international since there, the United States is not dissimilar to a pedophile?
Are you sure that's not something you want to reconsider saying? Perhaps you do not know what the word 'pedophile' means, or understand the weight it carries.
Or if you do, and you're willing to make such a stupid, hyperbolic statement, I wonder on what planet you must be living, that it doesn't apply even moreso to the PRC.
quote:Also China's so called "invasion" of other countries is flat out incorrect...
Say hello to Tibet!
quote:Taiwan is sovereign Chinese territory neither the PRC or ROC have renounced claims onto it since WWII and as such since the PRC is the vald successor state of the ROC gains all of its claims and respnsibilities according to international law tha makes Taiwan officially a part of "China" and in this case it is the PRC and the "ROC" are simply the vanquished side from the Chinese civil war, every single major nation recognizes that there can only be One China, while the US has promised to protect Taiwan in case of attack it nonetheless does not equal a rejection of Chinese claims on the Island.
Maybe all of this would mean more if the PRC, that peace-loving community of respecters of rights, weren't threatening to either wipe out or conquer Taiwan by force at any given moment, if they could.
Maybe I should put a gun to your head, get you to agree to stuff, and then later hold it over you, see what you say.
quote:China may be making noises yes but can you blame them with Chen as the president of Taiwan? Breaking a number of agreements the previous President from the KMT made wih the mainland? Even Bush has critisized Chen for going against the status quo which both the PRC and the ROC have informally agreed two.
Taiwan may be making noises yes, but can you blame them with the PRC as their overbearing, hostile, threatening neighbor?
Well, at least they aren't pedophiles like we are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, I was just making a joke about one of the more common assertions put forth by critics of the Bush Administration, that the war was 'unilateral'-now Mucus has shifted to equating 'unilateral' with 'not agreed to by the international community'.
Gotcha.
quote:Taiwan is sovereign Chinese territory neither the PRC or ROC have renounced claims onto it since WWII and as such since the PRC is the vald successor state of the ROC gains all of its claims and respnsibilities according to international law tha makes Taiwan officially a part of "China" and in this case it is the PRC and the "ROC"
Then international law is immoral. The current government of China has never exercised sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan is a functioning democracy that would vote overwhelmingly to not join China if it were put to a vote. To avoid angering the big bully next door, the rest of the world pretends that Taiwan is part of China. It might be practical, but it ain't moral.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'd still like to know why you think they would operate differently than now. Presumably, we'd like to hide some cards now, right?
Its pretty simple, you don't have to hide as many of your cards when you have the upper hand because you don't have to worry about anyone taking them away from you even if they know about it.
Say the US is developing a fearsome new weapons system, no nation in the world is in a position to stop them. However, if China suddenly developed a new fearsome weapons system, there would be serious debate in the US as to whether the US should remove it.
This is the reason why I'm still confused as to Rakeesh's points.
China is an aggressive nation, the US is an aggressive nation. They both spy on each other and they both seek to hide things from each other. Currently, the US is on top. China seeks to eventually replace it. Neither side wants to majorly rock the boat as of yet. So this is how the game is played until something big does happen. The US spies on China right up to the limit without provoking something big. China spies on the US right up to the limit without provoking something big.
China knows the US won't react to the blinding of its satellites. Afterall, the USSR probably did the same thing in the heyday.
So I ask, more explicitly...whats the big deal?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you're still confused as to my points, I'm not going to restate them or alter them somehow. I've done that twice now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I correctly pointed out that in recent years, the military budget of the PRC has been under constant expansion, with a recent doubling and annual 10% growth according to some sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China , RAND. [/QB]
The problem is that while your point is correct, it does little to prove the *original* assertion that China catching up. Let's examine the numbers in the link you brought up, the largest estimate of the Chinese military budget is 90 billion by the US DoD. Keep in mind that this is the largest estimate by a big margin.
The US military budget is currently 441.6 billion. Assuming that the US military budget stays at a standstill. It would take (with a quick calculation in Excel) around 16 years for the Chinese to catch up, assuming that China can keep up their 10% increases.
Not to scary afterall, but wait. What does Wikipedia give for the rate of increase from 2006 to 2007? An increase of 24.4 billion. The US military budget is increasing at about 5.457%
Extrapolating that, China's military budget will catch up to the US in about 40 years.
So catching up? Maybe, but really slowly. Not only catching up but reaching the point that they have a larger military budget than the next 40 nations? Not so much of a worry.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe you don't realize what it means for a nation to be catching up in just two generations to the nation with such a high defense budget, Mucus.
The implications are pretty obvious, though: they're growing, very, very rapidly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Vietnam was because of the Russian-Sino Split China had hoped to teach Vietnam a lession for attacking Cambodia
Ja, doch. And this makes it not an invasion in what way? Incidentally, I'm not invading Kokand, I'm just hoping to teach them a lesson for not declaring war on Poland when they attacked me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
40 years seems about par for course.
The US gained its independence in 1783 from the foremost power, Britain. 29 years after that (1812), the US was able to challenge Britain (albeit failing) for regional dominance. Pax Britannica ended in about the 1870s (or 90 years after). The US became the dominant world power by WWI or 134 years after.
The Japanese were beat down and opened to trade by the US in 1854. 40 years after that, they were able to challenge China (successfully) for regional dominance by 1894. Japan attempted to become the dominant world power in 1941 by challenging the US (87 years after).
China was beat down by the Japanese between 1894 to 1945. It is now 2006 (61 years later) and China is only approaching regional dominance. If we agree on the 40 years figure, that would give 101 years for China to eclipse the US, let alone achieve military superiority.
So China is behind schedule compared to Japan and about comparable to the US in the "growing underdog" contest.
So China is growing, no doubt about that. But its not really growing much faster than previous nations in its position.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tibet and Taiwan are matters easily handled under intenrational law. Tibet was a part of the Republic of China and a signatory of the Constituion of the Republic of China agreeing in a sense they area part of China.
When PRC became the successor state of the ROC they gained equal claims over Tibet.
Also it is commonly believed that irregardles sof who won the war whoever was "China" at the time wouldve still invaded Tibet.
Also consdiering the massive economic investment in Tibet and massive economic growth 50 universities when in 1950 they had none. Thousands of miles of roads, highways and railroads constructed when in 1950 there wer enegligiable.
Serfdom was apolished and a seculirzed governmnt established and the theocracy crushed. The living standrads of the average Tibetan is much higher now then it was 60 years ago and the Dali Lhama himself agrees that it is better to remain a part of China since of the obvious long term benefits.
Whether or not you think intenrational law is immoral is irrelevent you elected politicians who agree by those laws and conduct ALL international affairs by those laws you cannot have it both ways.
Unlike the USA China has been gianing massive eocnomic and diplomatic infleunce in global affairs:
quote:International influence - The PRC is gradually increasing its influence in areas which are traditionally dominated by the influence of Western countries. This is in part due to the PRC's non-ideological approach to foreign affairs and offer of no-strings-attached assistance, which thus presents an alternative for seeking foreign aid and potential allies. Its ties with these countries have become closer driven by strengthening economic bond through trade and strategic investment, and to a much lesser extent, military cooperation [14][15].
Trade and Influence in Africa - Since the 1960s and 70s the PRC has set out to improve relations with Africa. PRC's interest centered on building ideological solidarity with other underdeveloped nations to advance Chinese-style communism and on repelling so called, Western "imperialism". Following the Cold War, the PRC's interests evolved into more pragmatic pursuits such as trade, investment, and energy [16]. Sino-African trade has quadrupled since the beginning of the 21st century. China is now Africa's third largest commercial partner after the US and France, and second largest exporter to Africa after France. It is ahead of ex-colonial power the United Kingdom in both categories. [17]
Trade and Influence in Central Asia - As the Chinese economy grows, a major priority is securing natural resources to keep pace with demand. The PRC and Kazakhstan have agreed to construct a regional pipeline, and in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, the PRC has invested in hydroelectric projects. In addition to trade ties, the PRC has contributed aid and funding to the region's countries.[18] The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, of which the PRC is a founding member, is also becoming increasingly important in Central Asian security and politics. Some observers believe that beyond fostering neighborly relations, the PRC is primarily concerned with securing its borders as it emerges as a world power.[19]
Trade and Influence in East Asia - Growing trade and investment have given the PRC a greater politico-economic leverage over Mongolia.[20] The PRC also has a considerable influence in the military, economy, and politics of North Korea.[21] Beijing has used its political influence over the North Korean leadership to actively engage itself in the six-party talks in resolving North Korean nuclear crisis.
Trade and Influence in the Middle East - China's fast economic growth also means that China is consuming ever more energy. China is now the second largest consumer of petroleum products in the world after the United States. The PRC has recently been trying to secure and diversify sources of its energy (oil and gas) supplies from around the world. The Middle Eastern region, which contains the world's largest proven oil reserve, has been the focus of that policy. Roughly half of China's imported oil comes from the Middle East. At the same time, these energy-producing Middle Eastern nations are keen to diversify their customer base away from overdependence on the Western market (Europe and North America) as a demand source and so they have begun to look at other rapidly growing markets such as China. In addition to the deepening bilateral relationship in the trade and energy sectors, the PRC has an expanding body of other strategic interests in the greater Middle East region. This is manifested in its security relationships with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran, which entail WMD and ballistic missile cooperation. These include contentious arms deals which included providing Saudi Arabia and Iran with weapons which could not only harrass oil tankers and American aircraft carriers, but also carry nuclear warheads. There are concerns that nothing is being done to stop these arms from falling into terrorist hands. [22] Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are pivotal states in the region. They are somewhat likely to view the PRC in coming years as an alternate source of security and as a counterbalance to American power [23] [24] [25].
Trade and Influence in South Asia - China experiences a large amount of trade with South Asian nations. Trade with India alone is expected to rise to $25 billion by 2010 [26]. While China runs a trade deficit with India, it has trade surpluses with other South Asian economies (including Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan). It has conducted large arms deals with Pakistan and expressed support for Sri Lanka's Sinhalese majority in the ongiong Sri Lankan civil war. After the United States's nuclear deal with India, the PRC controversially offered Pakistan and Bangladesh nuclear power plants. To maintain relations with India, the PRC has decided to lay down its claims to the Indian state of Sikkim. The PRC has also helped improve the development sector of the South Asian economies of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal who are the largest beneficiaries of this economic aid. [27].
Trade and Influence in Southeast Asia - Some of the PRC's geopolitical ambitions focus on Southeast Asia, where the PRC is intent upon establishing a preeminent sphere of influence. The PRC has pursued this ambition with a diplomatic campaign designed to increase its influence politically and economically. [28] [29] [30]
Trade and Influence in Latin America and the Caribbean - Recent years have seen the PRC's growing economic and political influence in South America and the Caribbean. During a visit to Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Cuba in November 2004, PRC President Hu Jintao announced US$100 billion worth of investment over the next decade [31] [32] [33]. For instance, Cuba is turning to Chinese companies rather than Western ones to modernize its crippled transportation system at a cost of more than US$1 billion, continuing a trend of favoring the fellow communist country that has made China Cuba's second-largest trading partner after Venezuela in 2005 [34]. In addition, The PRC is expanding its military-to-military contacts in the region. The PRC is training increasing numbers of Latin American military personnel, taking advantage of a three-year old U.S. law that has led to a sharp decline in U.S.-run training programs for the region [35].
The Chinese withdrew from vietnam after only going 8 miles into the border, it was a border skirmish nothing more and the governments of China and Vietnam of long since hedge the fence.
Taiwan? Voting for independance oooh last I check the Pan Blue in the Taiwanese congress has gained the majority in the last bout of national elections otherwise indirectly stating favor for further economic ties and progresss for eventual gradual Unification under 1 Government 2 Systems, this topic in Taiwan is the center stage of Taiwanese Party politics and Chen Shi Bien is rapidly losing support a plan to buy billions of dollars of weapons was shot down 49 times in their Congress until it was rivsed ovver and over again down to a paltry number bairly enough to buy a couple of diesel subs and some unreliable Patriot Missile batteries.
I think the Taiwanese are coming far more around to eventuall Unification than you think.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Also consdiering the massive economic investment in Tibet and massive economic growth 50 universities when in 1950 they had none. Thousands of miles of roads, highways and railroads constructed when in 1950 there wer enegligiable.
Serfdom was apolished and a seculirzed governmnt established and the theocracy crushed. The living standrads of the average Tibetan is much higher now then it was 60 years ago and the Dali Lhama himself agrees that it is better to remain a part of China since of the obvious long term benefits.
Blayne, I continue to find your worldview absolutely astonishing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's easy. China good, everyone else not as good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ooo boy.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tibet and Taiwan are matters easily handled under intenrational law. Tibet was a part of the Republic of China and a signatory of the Constituion of the Republic of China agreeing in a sense they area part of China.
Tibet was basically a "tributary" to the ROC which was what they were during the Qing dynasty. When the PRC started devouring China they wanted to stay the hell away, and de facto declare what they already were. The PRC in their made rage to consolidate power tested just how far they could expand, and thats where they currently are.
quote:
Also it is commonly believed that irregardles sof who won the war whoever was "China" at the time wouldve still invaded Tibet.
You have made this universal claim before and you have yet to provide evidence that it is little more then your opinion. Democracies typically do not invade passive theocracies. You have absolutely NO proof that if the PRC had been completely obliterated that the ROC would have in a hostile manner taken over the whole of Tibet. They might have invited them to join with promises of rights, and there is a strong arguement Tibet would have agreed on those grounds. Provide evidence that the ROC was as power hungry as the PRC before making such claims.
quote: Also consdiering the massive economic investment in Tibet and massive economic growth 50 universities when in 1950 they had none. Thousands of miles of roads, highways and railroads constructed when in 1950 there wer enegligiable.
To call them universities where the best knowledge that is available is taught is a laughable claim. The universities are little more then reducation camps that attempt to weed out the Tibetan culture, and strongly influence them into becoming just another group of good communist Chinese, who are still considered lower class for not being Han Chinese.
quote: Serfdom was apolished and a seculirzed governmnt established and the theocracy crushed. The living standrads of the average Tibetan is much higher now then it was 60 years ago and the Dali Lhama himself agrees that it is better to remain a part of China since of the obvious long term benefits.
Ask how many Tibetans actually WANTED communism over theocracy? Ask the Chinese what they would do to the Dalai Lhama were he to come back to Tibet. If democracy had been introduced into Tibet, do you really see wide spread revolt against the Dalai Lhama, and an erradication of Buddhism throughout the country? Why did the Pachem Lhama flee the country through India claiming that he did not want to be a puppet just like the Chinese run Catholic church?
quote: The Chinese withdrew from vietnam after only going 8 miles into the border, it was a border skirmish nothing more and the governments of China and Vietnam of long since hedge the fence.
Deng Xiao Ping ON THE RECORD told Jimmy Carter that the Chinese were going to roll over Vietnam and take it. The Chines encountered the same thing the US forces had faced, and what THREE Mongol invasion forces had faced during the Yuan Dynasty. VERY STIFF Vietnamese resistance. The Chinese were COMPLETELY stopped and repulsed, and their attempt on Vietname was not even a very well executed one. It was so bad they pulled out again after only 1 month of being massacred. There are several estimates that state that there were around 20,000+ Chinese casulties in that 1 month ALONE. It was polical, and economical suicide to continue.
quote: Taiwan? Voting for independance oooh last I check the Pan Blue in the Taiwanese congress has gained the majority in the last bout of national elections otherwise indirectly stating favor for further economic ties and progresss for eventual gradual Unification under 1 Government 2 Systems, this topic in Taiwan is the center stage of Taiwanese Party politics and Chen Shi Bien is rapidly losing support a plan to buy billions of dollars of weapons was shot down 49 times in their Congress until it was rivsed ovver and over again down to a paltry number bairly enough to buy a couple of diesel subs and some unreliable Patriot Missile batteries.
Hmmm think of it this way. You are in a room with a caged animal that is rabid and growing stronger constantly. If you say you are independant and strong enough to handle your self then the cage containing the rabid animal is opened and you have to prove it. The US is the only thing standing in the way of a Chinese roll over of Taiwan. China is becoming stronger all the time. Either the PRC will collapse and Taiwan will be part of the rebuilding process, or they won't and the US won't be able to get in the way anymore.
That in mind, could you really rationally support any Taiwanese attempt at real independance?
quote: I think the Taiwanese are coming far more around to eventuall Unification than you think.
Not the kind of unification that comes from the mutual agreement that unification is better around the board, just that the Taiwanese would rather not die in order to stall an inevitability.
The Tibetans wanted to try a gurrila resistance to China in order to give America time to help out. A traitor blew up their ammo depot, and resistance was impossible. The Taiwanese know what happened when the PRC rolled over Tibet, I am SURE they would rather avoid that at all costs. Having a gun placed into your hand and forced to shoot your own parents is something most would rather avoid.
But hey if China can do it, its ok right?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
1) They are not Taiwanese 98% of the population is HAN Chinese the majority immedigrated when the KMT were pushed out o the mianland.
2) The language "Taiwanese" is as different from Mandarin as Shanghainese is different from Mandarin.
So in conclusion they are quite Chinese and under the concept of Chinese nationalism is a part of China.
In fatc they still call themselves the ROC and officially have claims over all of China including Tibet (ROC maps eing an excellent source) and Outer Mongolia.
So when the ROC collapsed and the PRC took their place the PRC gained all the rights and claims of the ROC.
Currently the buisnesses in Taiwan are everyday becomming more tied to the mainland citizens in Taiwan KNOW that China's economy is massive and becoming a part of them will make them that much richer as such mutuallly benefitting unificiation is very much a plus, its not about "stalling" or being afraid they know that if worse comes to worse the US could protect them and the fact that despite the noises form Beijing, the mainland has been very patient and as conditions continue to improve Taiwans atittude towards the issue becomes warmer.
ALL WORLD MAPS in the world showed China aka the ROC has including Tibet, there was no conquist it was simple consolidation of power of the new administration of China. There was no "rage" or evil mastermind scheme about it. It was simply the new country taking what it correctly believes belongs ot it.
And since when was the KMT democratic? oh I know when 1980. The KMT party under Chaing Kai Shek from the 1920's until even after his death was brutal and corrupt, driven by careerism, nepotism, and rampart hyper inflation during the 40's and yes I did give a source a US Navy Colonel Analyzing the Sino-Indian conflict and in summarizing the history behind made the assertion that the KMT would have odne the same and the war would have still happened is the most probable scenario.
quote:The government of the PRC also rejects claims that the lives of Tibetans have deteriorated, pointing to rights enjoyed by the Tibetan language in education and in courts and says that the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950.[26] Benefits that are commonly quoted include: the GDP of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is 30 times that before 1950; TAR has 22,500 km of highways, as opposed to 0 in 1950; all secular education in TAR was created after the revolution; TAR now has 25 scientific research institutes as opposed to 0 in 1950; infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000; life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000; the collection and publishing of the traditional Epic of King Gesar, which is the longest epic poem in the world and had only been handed down orally before; allocation of 300 million Renminbi since the 1980s to the maintenance and protection of Tibetan monasteries [27]. The Cultural Revolution and the cultural damage it wrought upon the entire PRC is generally condemned as a nationwide catastrophe, whose main instigators (in the PRC's view, the Gang of Four) have been brought to justice and whose reoccurrence is unthinkable in an increasingly modernized China. The China Western Development plan is viewed by the PRC as a massive, benevolent, and patriotic undertaking by the eastern coast to help the western parts of China, including Tibet, catch up in prosperity and living standards.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: 1) They are not Taiwanese 98% of the population is HAN Chinese the majority immedigrated when the KMT were pushed out o the mianland.
Argue semantics all you want, people in Taiwan use both words interchangeably. How about asking them if they would rather be "you zi you de zhong guo ren" or "gong chan de zhong guo ren" You will get TWO very different answers (Chinese with freedoms, Chinese who are communists)
quote: 2) The language "Taiwanese" is as different from Mandarin as Shanghainese is different from Mandarin.
You are right, I am not sure what this has to do with anything. FYI Taiwanese is simply the language of Fu Jian province, the province where most of the people came from when they fled to Taiwan.
quote: So in conclusion they are quite Chinese and under the concept of Chinese nationalism is a part of China.
They want to be Chinese, without having to be communist, its alot like how South Vietnam did not want to be Vietnamese AND communist.
quote: In fatc they still call themselves the ROC and officially have claims over all of China including Tibet (ROC maps eing an excellent source) and Outer Mongolia.
Chinese pride is the same on both shores Blayne. If the Taiwanese government does not make all those claims, they basically admit to being de facto part of the PRC.
quote: So when the ROC collapsed and the PRC took their place the PRC gained all the rights and claims of the ROC.
You mean when the PRC duped the peasants into believing they did all the work in WW2 and the KMD just sat around and did nothing?
quote: Currently the buisnesses in Taiwan are everyday becomming more tied to the mainland citizens in Taiwan KNOW that China's economy is massive and becoming a part of them will make them that much richer as such mutuallly benefitting unificiation is very much a plus, its not about "stalling" or being afraid they know that if worse comes to worse the US could protect them and the fact that despite the noises form Beijing, the mainland has been very patient and as conditions continue to improve Taiwans atittude towards the issue becomes warmer.
Oh so the rich who have the most to lose from a fight for independance are against it all? Sorta like the Tory folks in the US during that revolution? The rich are usually not the ones thinking about the good of all.
Also I wouldnt call it "mainland noise" I call stock piling the largest concentration of missiles in the world at the straights "The rabid beast using 2 paper clips in a manner VERY similar to lock picking."
quote: ALL WORLD MAPS in the world showed China aka the ROC has including Tibet, there was no conquest it was simple consolidation of power of the new administration of China. There was no "rage" or evil mastermind scheme about it. It was simply the new country taking what it correctly believes belongs ot it.
quote: And since when was the KMT democratic? oh I know when 1980. The KMT party under Chaing Kai Shek from the 1920's until even after his death was brutal and corrupt, driven by careerism, nepotism, and rampart hyper inflation during the 40's and yes I did give a source a US Navy Colonel Analyzing the Sino-Indian conflict and in summarizing the history behind made the assertion that the KMT would have odne the same and the war would have still happened is the most probable scenario.
I will not EVER argue that the KMT were even close to being perfect. Corruption was a serious problem, BUT, Chiang Kai Shek IMO definately had China's best interest at heart, something Mao can NEVER claim. NOT EVER. Chiang Kai Shek groomed his son to be the leader in Taiwan that he could not be. His son basically made Taiwan the democratic state Chiang had envisioned for Mainland China.
quote:The government of the PRC also rejects claims that the lives of Tibetans have deteriorated, pointing to rights enjoyed by the Tibetan language in education and in courts and says that the lives of Tibetans have been improved immensely compared to the Dalai Lama's rule before 1950.[26] Benefits that are commonly quoted include: the GDP of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is 30 times that before 1950; TAR has 22,500 km of highways, as opposed to 0 in 1950; all secular education in TAR was created after the revolution; TAR now has 25 scientific research institutes as opposed to 0 in 1950; infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000; life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000; the collection and publishing of the traditional Epic of King Gesar, which is the longest epic poem in the world and had only been handed down orally before; allocation of 300 million Renminbi since the 1980s to the maintenance and protection of Tibetan monasteries [27]. The Cultural Revolution and the cultural damage it wrought upon the entire PRC is generally condemned as a nationwide catastrophe, whose main instigators (in the PRC's view, the Gang of Four) have been brought to justice and whose reoccurrence is unthinkable in an increasingly modernized China. The China Western Development plan is viewed by the PRC as a massive, benevolent, and patriotic undertaking by the eastern coast to help the western parts of China, including Tibet, catch up in prosperity and living standards.
oh OK, let take the word of the PRC for it. While we are at it lets ask Stalin what kind of job he did running the USSR?
Here is a few other little points of interest. Instigate a 1 child policy and watch YOUR infant mortality rate plummet!
300000000 renminbi huh? What so 37 million dollars? In the last 26 years? I know PEOPLE who spend more then that in a year.
Oh please the Gang of Four? The Cultural Revolution, The Great Leap Forward, AND Let 10,000 Flowers Blossom were ALL Mao Ze Dong's ideas. People like Deng Xiao Ping were banished when they opposed it and upon Mao's death took advantage of the situation and ushered in mass reform, China was on the verge of total chaos. But they did not criticize Mao directly, they said the ideas "Were in retrospect not wise, but there was no condemnation of Mao, it was all heaped on the gang of 4.
[ October 02, 2006, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, I continue to find your worldview absolutely astonishing.
Me, too. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know how China can blind, without totally destroying the capabilities of a GPS satellite. They don't use cameras for their positioning, so US military JDAMS are perfectly fine. If they knock them out, they'll piss off half the world, and even that won't stop them, we'll be able to bounce signals off the upcoming Euro version of GPS, or the new US version that'll be coming online in a decade or two.
But even so, attacking them is going to do a whole lot more than piss off the US military. The more interconnected the US becomes to China, and the more China spends like a madman, the more the US consumer will have power over the Chinese economy. No consumer economy spends more than we do, and if the US consumer decides to boycott Chinese made goods and they lose literally hundreds of billions of dollars, they'll be in big trouble.
This becomes less and less of a problem for us too, as Vietnam, Laos, all of South America, and other places becomes more and more attractive to producers for export to the US, especially S. America with the advent of CAFTA, and greatly reduced travel expenses from not having to travel across the Pacific.
That having been said, they can choose to blind our satellites, and whatever else they want, but they have to suffer the consequences of same. I don't think it would be out of the question for a precision strike on the facility causing the problem, but it might not make a difference if the facility can be easily replaced. It might be easier to create some sort of stealth satellite, or defense satellite.
Here's a question. What if the US created satellites with self defense properties, that automatically strike back at facilities that attack them?
What if individual corporations did that?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
that violates various international treaties in regards to weaponizing space.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What if the US created satellites with self defense properties, that automatically strike back at facilities that attack them?
There are many theories out there which say we've already done this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would be surprised if we hadn't. To be honest...I'd be upset if we hadn't, I think.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: that violates various international treaties in regards to weaponizing space.
With regards to the history of this thread, do either the US or China REALLY have that big a problem abrogating international treaties in cases where they feel their national defense is at hand?
When you attack an orbital asset of a foreign nation, doesn't that just push the other nation to weaponize their orbital assets? Non-nuclear nations are pushing for nukes, that only pushes nations like the US to push for a missile defense shield, which I believe also violations international law. Look at us continuing to research and implement it. Look at the world do nothing to stop us.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Satelite Concave Mirrors! Would this not work?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:pushes nations like the US to push for a missile defense shield, which I believe also violates international law.
More accurately, it violates a treaty between the US and the USSR. The USSR doesn't exist anymore.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Nonetheless Russia is the successor state of the USSR and under intenrational laws any and all treaties with the former USSR applies also to Russia.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When China stops violating trade laws, you can start lecturing the US about violations of international law Blayne, until then, do so at risk of a litany of violations your hero nations has committed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Those things are either OK, or just plain not as bad as you're making them out to be, or America does it worse!
I'm having to restrain myself from typing those two little words that apply so beautifully here.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't know how China can blind, without totally destroying the capabilities of a GPS satellite... But even so, attacking them is going to do a whole lot more than piss off the US military. The more interconnected the US becomes to China, and the more China spends like a madman, the more the US consumer will have power over the Chinese economy. ...That having been said, they can choose to blind our satellites, and whatever else they want, but they have to suffer the consequences of same.
In any case, there are only two possibilities:
a) China hasn't been doing anything and this thread has just been a big source of hot air b) China has been doing something
Since most people seem to be discounting the first possibility. Let's focus on the second:
If China has been attacking satellites, have we seen the US military being pissed off? Not so much. In fact, both the government and the military have kept the news pretty quiet. So far from being pissed off they're just sitting there and taking it.
From China's view, they can have the US with active spy satellites, or the US with "broken" spy satellites with no consequences. Why would they ever choose the former?
As for the control that the US has over China? The two economies are currently so intertwined that the consequences of any conflict would be dire. Besides, let's not kid ourselves that even Bush is shortsighted enough to do something so damaging to the US economy. The chances of the US starting a war with China while still embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even possibly thinking about Iran is laughably small.
Bottom-line, if China has actually blinded US satellites, then there effectively have been no current consequences (airchair sabre-rattling and hot air in this forum aside) and there are unlikely to be any in the near future. From their POV? Thats a pretty good trade.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:pushes nations like the US to push for a missile defense shield, which I believe also violates international law.
More accurately, it violates a treaty between the US and the USSR. The USSR doesn't exist anymore.
Even more accurately it violates neither international law nor treaty, because the U.S. pulled out of the treaty in accordance with the treaty's withdrawal provisions.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Sun Tzu would be proud.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Sun Tzu would be proud.
how do you mean?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sun Tzu would be proud that someone exercised an agreed-upon term in a treaty? It seems an awfully trivial thing to be proud about.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I think Blayne was referring to Mucus' analysis of China's strategy and/or the strategy itself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah. Quoting or personal addressing is your friend, Blayne.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I doubt the Chinese will be feeling so keen when the US finally calls in the WTO to hit them on a wide array of violations.
Our dependency on them is a short term thing, I think, despite what the majority of people say. Especially if the price of transportation rises as predicted in the future.
Other nations can and will, especially India, step in to get their piece of the American money pie. Besides, we like India more, and they seem to like us more. We won't forever be at the point where pissing off China will shatter our economy (I don't think we're there even now).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I doubt the Chinese will be feeling so keen when the US finally calls in the WTO to hit them on a wide array of violations.
Our dependency on them is a short term thing, I think, despite what the majority of people say. Especially if the price of transportation rises as predicted in the future.
Other nations can and will, especially India, step in to get their piece of the American money pie. Besides, we like India more, and they seem to like us more. We won't forever be at the point where pissing off China will shatter our economy (I don't think we're there even now).
Not if they keep buying our debt.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I doubt the Chinese will be feeling so keen when the US finally calls in the WTO to hit them on a wide array of violations.
Our dependency on them is a short term thing, I think, despite what the majority of people say. Especially if the price of transportation rises as predicted in the future.
Other nations can and will, especially India, step in to get their piece of the American money pie. Besides, we like India more, and they seem to like us more. We won't forever be at the point where pissing off China will shatter our economy (I don't think we're there even now).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Th ability for China to essentially strip a potential advversary of an importance means of gatheirng intelligentce with little to no consequences inregards to it is probl6y one of the greatest possibile non military achievements you can do to even the odds should combat eventually come to you.
The economic relationships and framework between an emerging superpower and a declinging super power is so stupendiosuly complex that I stopped veen trying to understand it fully there are too many factors to consider.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Should combat ACTUALLY come to them, then there are some rather grave consequences for their actions wouldn't you say?
Blinding a couple satellites that have the same route at all times over China is one thing. They are predictable, and all things considered easy targets. Should it ever come to blows, the first thing to go will be China's ability to take out our satellites, considering it won't be hard at all to trace the location of the offending laser. Once that happens, we redeploy assets, and we've lost zero combat efficiency. They need a way to blind ALL out satellites, or to retain their ability to do so at will, for it to really be a good military weapon during combat operations. Otherwise, they'll only get away with it for so long.
China has a LOT going for them right now, but those things won't last forever, and I have a feeling the Chinese mindset will have a hard time adjusting to everything not going their way.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
You also stopped trying to understand grammar, Blayne. Despite what weird vision of the world you may posess, the U.S. is not a declining superpower. Two excellent sources of proof for this, are the fact that our population is exploding (Which if you want to stay on is good), and our economy is growing even faster. Just some hard proof.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not being number one doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want, much as being number one doesn't.
Of course, what's funny is that many protectionist Chinese policies aren't good for them, either.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do not thik your thinking this out completely through:
Blinding sats OVER China is a leats somewhat justifyiable and as such very easy to keep support on your side and making it arder for the one opposing you to confront it.
Also should the perosn owning the sats make any commited noises you can always apologize and say it was ana accident "oops" and itll quickly be swept under the rug if your stubburn enough think of OSC description of Russian doggedness in Ender's Shadow.
What kind of lasers are blinding these satalleits? Are they like radar stations? WOuld they not be just as easy to redeploy to continue to prevent spying of the Chinese mainland?
And even then China cannot be beaten in any ground war at this point their technology and poltical scenes are stable enogh to warrant any uncopmmited land invasion to be futile, arieal bombings will not work either since with the US bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan American store houses are probly eaisly scratching the buttom of the barrel or would very soon after a week.
Next why would they need ot blind satalleits? Did the article not say they were only blinding spy sattaleist that were over China?
Your making things sound alot eaiser then they really are. Pride goeth before the fall as they say.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Last time I checked Xinhua the chinese were trying to slowly put in policies ot lossen tarriffs the problem is they dont want speculation to skyrocket or soemthing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And yes read Pual Kennedy's the rise and all fo the great powers. The USA economically speaking is a declining superpower relatively speaking there is no doubt that hey are stronger then the USA of 20 years ago but theyre position relatively speaking is far less theyre global share of the world economy is rapidly decreasing and similar trends that followed along the collapse of the british empire are staritng to show up over the last 10 years in the usa.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Blayne, the US is not declining economically. Our average growth is consistently number one among large developed nations. China's growth is fairly impressive among less developed nations, but hardly unprecedented, and in fact dwarfed by that in some nations, such as South Korea.
The US's share of the global economy is decreasing because lots of other people are doing better, not because the US is doing worse. That's an extraordinarily important distinction. Economics is not a zero-sum game.
Considering America's economy is essentially nothing like colonial Great Britain's, I have no idea how similar trends could be identified. Not to mention that the number one cause fingered for the timing of colonial collapse is, simply put, a couple of World Wars that devastated British infrastructure.
There are some people in China who have smart ideas on protectionist policies, but they're being strongly resisted. China certainly shouldn't drop all their protectionist policies at once, but many aren't being loosened, and a few are being strengthened.
As for American 'store houses', you're seriously delusional if you think we're short on bombs. Our issues in Afghanistan and Iraq have everything to do with our political climate and nothing to do with the capabilities of our military.
We certainly wouldn't invade, though, if it came to a final confrontation. We'd nuke. China has extremely few nuclear missiles that can reach the US, and we know where they are. Invasion would be incredibly stupid of us, China has lots of nuclear missiles that could be deployed to thwart an invasion. Of course, there likely isn't going to be a final confrontation. At worst we'd have proxy war until a government collapses, and more hopefully we'd, I don't know, not fight.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Our share of the world economy is decreasing only because China's is increasing. By 2040, the world's three largest economies in nominal terms will be: the U.S., China, than India. Than a few years later: China, U.S., India. Then a few decades later: China, India, U.S. It will be over 100+ years, probably 150 untill we're not in thw top 3. We won't have a huge share anymore, but we'll one of the major three.Our economy is also a hell of a lot more stable than China's is. We have 5% of the world's population, and over 25% of the world's market.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I really don't see the comparisons sometimes between the collapse of the BE and America's dip in economic power.
Our economy is still growing every year, while Britain was kicked out of almost all foriegn militarily held colonial holdings. You don't see a vast difference there?
lol, oops sorry our pinpoint accuracy laser just happened to hit a tiny, TINY target out in the middle of space that happened to be your satellite's camera lens. How stupid do you have to be to accept that at face value?
I'm not sure what kind of laser they are using, but these aren't tiny devices, and are nowhere near as mobile as radar. The US is just starting to make them small enough to fit in a 747 for ABL purposes, and we're experimenting with putting lasers on fightercraft, but even then they aren't small enough to be quickly moved, and I highly doubt China is ahead of us in that kind of laser research. Their most likely capability is a fixed installation, easily taken out.
We don't need or want to beat China at a ground war. Following that same theory though, there's no nation on earth that could beat the US at a ground war at home either. Besides, we'd have help, they wouldn't, not that either of us would need it. All we'd need is some strategic bombing, which even with limited operations in Afghanistan, and fully committed to Iraq is well within our capabilities. We have carriers totally uncommitted to Iraq, and B-2 and F-117 bombers that China still can't touch with their radar. Our defense budget, as many here like to point out, as almost doubled in the last eight years, we have tons of pretty little bombs to drop, especially with the JDAM mods that cheaply turn a dumb bombs into smart ones.
And the reason they need to take out all the sats and not just a couple, in a MILITARY situation, is that other sats can just be retasked to go over China, over different routes.
The military situation actually IS fairly easy. It's the political situation that makes all this a fun academic debate.
Edit to add: Nice post fugu.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Can anyone else here explain for me why any arguement involving nukes is a stupid idea?
China has estimately 50 ICBMs and the newfangled Denfeng-41s are coming online essentialy MIRV carrying ICBMs capable of hitting Washingotn DC with pinpoint accuracy AND are based on the Topol-Ms Rusian ICBM which can adjust their freaking flight in flight.
50 ICBMs with MIRVs lets assume 8 warheads per ICBM thats 50 major US Cities kaput.
what is the population size of the USa's largest 50 cities?
Lets assume WCS 100,000,000
Thats nearly a third of your population gone.
That means economic devaster.
There is nothing in the PLA's military doctrines that even remotely suggetss the usages of ANY nukes under any circumstances except as a responce to nuclear attack.
Would you be willing ot not only murder hhundreds of millions of Chinese people but tens opf millions fo your own?
Would you push that button cuz' the enemy isnt playin' fair? You cant win a gorund war so you resort to nukes how freakin' mature.
Then there's the ~2500 tactical and SLBM's that can be laucnhed form Chinas at least 2 nuclear submarines and in a WCS gives whats left to some terrorist cell that continues to within the khaos detonate nukes in your country.
The official Chinese doctrine and all military papers currently being published in the PLA inregards to nuclear weapons only speak of minimal deterrent and the upholding of their unilatrer no-first-use policy.
Before wars are fought with guns they are fought with words.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If China is easily ahead with pebble bed nuclear reactor reserach why wouldnt they be ahead in something else?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Should combat ACTUALLY come to them, then there are some rather grave consequences for their actions wouldn't you say?
Blinding a couple satellites that have the same route at all times over China is one thing. They are predictable, and all things considered easy targets. Should it ever come to blows, the first thing to go will be China's ability to take out our satellites...
A) The whole point is that combat is incredibly unlikely to come to them. As BlackBlade correctly pointed out, China is currently the largest foreign purchaser of US governmental debt. Let's not kid ourselves, a war or even high tensions between China and the US would be devastating for *both* economies. Bush doesn't already want to bring back the draft because he correctly knows how unpopular it would be. A President knows how popular a war is but does not want to bear real human or economic costs. A war with China would violate both principles. The American army is currently on the verge of the draft occupying a country of less than 30 million, China has 1.3 *billion*. The American consumer was already crying holy terror over gas prices during the summer, imagine what tensions between two nuclear powers would do.
No President in the near-future is going to start a war with China, not while Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea are already hot. And in the meantime, we *might* not know what China is up to.
b) Blinding satellites is not just a combat capability, its a strategic capability. *If* they really are able to blind our satellites, we don't know what they're building, what they're preparing, or what they're moving. That makes combat even more unlikely because no general wants to lead an army with no intel.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*mimics annoucner over speaker phone* And Mucus scores 3 points for the red team!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What are you talking about? Japan is the biggest foreign owner of US debt, China has less than half of what they do.
As for who is buying US debt, the UK is currently buying over 3 times the US debt China is, and OPEC is buying slightly more than China.
Regarding chinese nuclear missile capabilities: the only current ones that can reach the continental US are all silo-based, and we've got those pinpointed (the fake silos mean we'd need a lot of overkill, but we can hit them all). If we're going into a major combat with China, first thing we do is nuke all of those. Of course, those can't hit a good portion of the continental US anyways, so I don't know what you're spouting about the 50 largest US cities. They can't hit the east coast, or a good portion of the midwest.
The new missile is more interesting, but not a single one has come online yet. We'll see if they hit their production targets.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We don't need or want to beat China at a ground war. Following that same theory though, there's no nation on earth that could beat the US at a ground war at home either. Besides, we'd have help, they wouldn't, not that either of us would need it. All we'd need is some strategic bombing, which even with limited operations in Afghanistan, and fully committed to Iraq is well within our capabilities. We have carriers totally uncommitted to Iraq, and B-2 and F-117 bombers that China still can't touch with their radar. Our defense budget, as many here like to point out, as almost doubled in the last eight years, we have tons of pretty little bombs to drop, especially with the JDAM mods that cheaply turn a dumb bombs into smart ones.
If the US decided to violate all common-sense and attack China over a provocation that warranted a couple sentences in a military report, the US would not have help. Well, it would....in the form of psychiatrists that would try to find out what the heck was wrong with our leadership.
As many have pointed out:
1) You can't have a direct war between two nuclear powers and expect either side to "win." There is no winning for anyone but the cockroaches. 2) As a corollary, there will not be a ground war in the US OR China. 3) There will not be a air war above China either, for the same exact reason. If the US starts hitting targets in China from carriers, how do you know they won't be mad enough to take the whole task force out with a nuke. How many lives are you willing to risk over that bluff? A thousand? A million? How about several hundred million? How do you know North Korea won't decide to up the ante and do it themselves? An air war is a no-go. 4) The US starting a proxy war wouldn't unblind the satellites, it would cost American lives and the US economy while accomplishing not one thing.
Let's face it, the Pentagon wouldn't be in favour of a war and even if it was, American business interests trump military interests. America is not going to start a war.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, people don't seem to understand what would happen if China were to stop buying (or especially, sell off) the US debt they hold.
The Chinese currency would revaluate upward, making Chinese products more expensive around the world, so other countries would buy less. Simultaneously, American products (and those of other nations with currencies closely entwined with the dollar) would become cheaper in China, so they'd buy more.
This would actually be a good thing for the Chinese and the US, but trying to perform the shift all at once would hurt both in the short term. It would almost certainly hurt China far more, though. The dollar is at approximately the right value against most currencies, so we wouldn't experience major shifts in trade except with China and anyone pegged against them. China, however, has an artificially depreciated currency, and would revaluate against most of the world, making their economy have to drastically retool in a short period of time.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Reticulum, predicting national economy rankings 40 years in the future is a poor joke. Too many random and unforeseeable events make it impossible.
Blayne, first of all, WTF is WCS? Second, your numbers for Chinese nukes are just silly, as 30 seconds of googling shows. 2500?
2500 in total but it appears when I double check my sources I was incorrect. www.sinodenfece.com Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
WCS == Worse Case Scenario
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*chuckle*
Our nuclear weapons on submarines alone number around 2000. We could wipe out China (as in, all of it) before it had a chance to respond.
Of course, that would likely end modern civilization around the world as we know it, but that's life (or death, as the case might be).
There will be no major nuclear confrontation with China. Even if they launched first, they'd be utterly wiped off the face of the planet.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Explain to me how if possible to nuke a nation before they have a chance to laucnh? Doesnt it take sveeral minutes for ICBMs to reach their targets? Isnt that enough time for an immediate counter nuking as proposed by MAD?
Whether or not you could turn a country into a parking lot is irrelevent, it is not possible to nuke a country that has nukes and not get nuked in kind else the USA or the USSR wouldve nuked each other by now.
Would tyouy be wuilling to push that button if there is any chance that by doing so you murder tens of millions of your own people?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Explain to me how if possible to nuke a nation before they have a chance to launch?
That's actually one of the purposes of a boomer fleet, Blayne. If you know where enemy silos are located, you can target them with your first strikes and significantly reduce their ability to retaliate. This is why the Russians were so determined to build mobile launch platforms.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, if we launch first from submarines and airplanes within a relatively short range of the targets (for instance, from a ways off the coast), then the nuclear weapons will be destroyed (along with the rest of China, if we so desired -- we have enough nukes on our submarines alone to do it several times over) before China's leaders even know they've been attacked.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
fugu: Sorry, so China is the second largest holder of US national debt, and not the first. Doesn't even begin to change the analysis enough to make it a likely proposition for the US to start a war.
The discussion of who would "win" a nuclear war is academic. Before we can even start to consider who would win such a war, the question is who would start it. You would need a US leadership that could ignore the economic cost of a nuclear war and want as its legacy being the first administration to start a thermonuclear war. Even Bush isn't that dumb and hopefully the US leadership can only improve from here.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought our boomer fleet had been significantly slashed over the last decade since the fall of the Soviet Union. How many Ohios are we still operating?
Also wondering, are the Chinese ballistic missiles based on Russian ones? If so, they can only have them fueled for so long before they have to unfuel them, service them, and refuel. The Russians never really had to worry, they had enough weapons to keep everything in rotation, but the Chinese have nothing close to that capacity. If we picked the right moment to launch, they wouldn't stand a chance of hitting us back. But I don't know the specs on their ICBMs.
Mucus -
Heh, I wasn't suggesting we launch a ground war or NUKE them over trade impasses or spying issues. Blayne was the one who brought up military intervention, and here we are, as always, talking about who will beat or nuke who, when in all liklihood, this entire argument is purely academic.
Edit to add: China is decades away from a nuclear fleet that can compete with us. Even if they steal enough technology to make it viable, they are still decades away in experience and training, though I'm betting they can buy that from the Russians for a tidy sum. Russia was at least a decade behind us when they got out of the game. In sonar, training, advanced weaponry, silent running and every other area, we're a generation ahead of China. They'd better get started now, but for the next 30 years, most of their subs, barring an explosion in ship building, are going to have a US sub RIGHT behind them profiling their sonar characteristics, following, intercepting trasmissions, and learning all about them, and the Chinese will be none the wiser.
[ October 04, 2006, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
So the laser is either supposed to overload the CCD on the satellite's camera, or the laser is intended to apply enough heat to the satellite to do some damage.
To overload the CCD the laser would have to pinpoint and track the camera lens. The Chinese would have to know where on the satellite the lens is located. Also, there would be an angle beyond which, there would be no blinding effect. Considering that a CCD has a pitted surface, to be effective the laser beam would have to be nearly perpendicular to the CCD. The Chinese would have to know the angle at which the lens is mounted. Of course, we've probably given them the blueprints, so they would know exactly where everything is.
Applying enough heat to do damage at that speed and distance would be very difficult. You've got to track the same point on the satellite long enough for enough heat to build up. And that point you're tracking would have to be a vulnerable point, not just a random section of what would usually be highly reflective metal.
The State Department is probably just seeing recordings of occasional bright flashes from the same pinpoint on the ground that last maybe a second at the most.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery: To overload the CCD the laser would have to pinpoint and track the camera lens. The Chinese would have to know where on the satellite the lens is located.
All laser beams spread, and it is not necessary (or even technologically possible) to only aim specifically at the lens of a spy satellite to temporarily shut it down.
Permanent damage is different.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Unless they've come up with a viable way of solving blooming issues.
But they'd need a fairly large facility to do that. I can't imagine we wouldn't have noticed it before now.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Blooming issues?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blooming, when the beam defocuses and spreads while is hits atmosphere and air and such on its way toward the target. I don't know if it's the "technical" term or not, but it's the one I most often hear used to describe the problem.
There ARE ways to solve blooming, but most of them would be so incredibly expensive, and time consuming as to not be worth the benefit, not for satellite blinding anyway. For satellite destroying maybe.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
That's what I thought you meant. I've never heard of a countermeasure that would work for a beam travelling through the entire atmosphere. But I'm not up-to-date on laser tech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not super up to date either. From what I've read though, there are some theories on ways to stop blooming past the atmosphere, mostly having to do with large, large mirrors or some other type of array. I think I read somewhere (other I think, than Tom Clancy), that one of the most hopeful future arrays would be a giant diamond mirror basically to focus the beam and punch it through anything. With the recent advances in artificial diamond creation, more for industrial and commercial applications than for jewelry, it looks like more of a future reality than a crazy theoretical pipe dream.
Other things I've read have to do with pulses and burning the air in front of the beam to reduce bloom. But I think the easiest way is just to create a laser in vaccuum, that makes bloom almost irrelevent with regards to air, though with all the microparticles in space, especially the junk around earth, I don't know how big a problem that would be.
Basically, for the Chinese to have created a beam powerful enough to strike JUST the camera lens on a satellite even in LEO, and sustain the laser long enough to do damage would be a major accomplishment, and would almost have to come from a large facility, nothing even close to mobile or easily hidden from satellites. The main bonus they have working for them would be that they have a large country to hide it in, but the problem is with a laser, it could easily be followed back to the source.
And I think satellites could be hardened to withstand the blast of an enemy low powered laser, which might be all they need, as I don't think China has the capability to build powerful lasers that can punch that far into space without blooming issues.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mucus: no, China is the 4th largest holder of US debt. By far most of the debt is held either by the government itself or the American people. Only about one third is held abroad.
As for high tensions being devastating because of that, not really. If they hold the debt, it doesn't matter if there are tensions. If they sell off all or a lot of the debt at once that might have some negative effect in the short term, though a much bigger one on them. However, significant tensions between the US and China would increase the willingness of others to purchase US debt as a hedge against currency fluctuations (tensions always do), so there'd be plenty of people to buy it. Our economy would hardly notice it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:
Although the Chinese tests do not aim to destroy American satellites, the laser attacks could make them useless over Chinese territory.
So far all it says is that over a particular stretch of territory America is unable to illegial spy on another country.
So I have to ask whats the big deal?
If a Spyplane flew over the USA and took pictures of several sensitive military isntallations would you be peeved?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Once the target starts to vaporize, you've got the problem of the vapors blocking the beam.
I've seen the use of a little air nozzle to blow the vapor off to the side in a case in which a carbon dioxide laser is used to scribe text on silicon wafers.
I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese nationals were involved in the design and construction of our spy satellites. Consider how many high-end science and technology college courses in the U.S. are attended or taught by Chinese nationals.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So far all it says is that over a particular stretch of territory America is unable to illegial spy on another country.
So I have to ask whats the big deal?
If a Spyplane flew over the USA and took pictures of several sensitive military isntallations would you be peeved?
It's not a spyplane. It's unclear whether or not it's illegal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Although the Chinese tests do not aim to destroy American satellites, the laser attacks could make them useless over Chinese territory.
So far all it says is that over a particular stretch of territory America is unable to illegial spy on another country.
So I have to ask whats the big deal?
If a Spyplane flew over the USA and took pictures of several sensitive military isntallations would you be peeved?
Yes! I'd jump in my F-16 and see how close I could fly to it, I'd even hold up a paper with my email address on it so close they could read it! I'd keep doing that until one day I get too close and clip the plane thus sending my plane crashing. My body would never be found, but thats OK! My bosses would capture the plane as it makes an emergency landing on Chinese soil. They would then gnash their teeth and moan at American claiming their huge slow manuevering plane must have swerved at the more agile jet. They would bill the US for parking their plane on Chinese soil somewhere to the tune of several million dollars. The US would send a bill back for the exact amount the Chinese billed for wrecking the plane in the first place. We'd then disassemble the plane (obviously for espionage purposes) and ship it back to the US and fly their pilots back too.
Yep! Thats what I'd do!
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Btw, people don't seem to understand what would happen if China were to stop buying (or especially, sell off) the US debt they hold.
The Chinese currency would revaluate upward, making Chinese products more expensive around the world, so other countries would buy less. Simultaneously, American products (and those of other nations with currencies closely entwined with the dollar) would become cheaper in China, so they'd buy more.
This would actually be a good thing for the Chinese and the US, but trying to perform the shift all at once would hurt both in the short term. It would almost certainly hurt China far more, though. The dollar is at approximately the right value against most currencies, so we wouldn't experience major shifts in trade except with China and anyone pegged against them. China, however, has an artificially depreciated currency, and would revaluate against most of the world, making their economy have to drastically retool in a short period of time.
Exactly - China's economy and ours are far too intertwined for either to go to war with the other. China wasn't trying to provoke us by blinding our satellites - they know that's unbelievably dumb for them, financially. And they didn't do any lasting harm. If anything, they made us smarter about our satellites.
I'm not concerned about China, personally. I am way more concerned about North Korea.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
It's unrelated to the subject, and I know it's been said before, and will be said again, but please... for the love of all that is holy, Blayne, please type your responses in word using spellcheck and then post them. As is it is remarkably difficult to read your posts
all in all I have to agree with Libbie... there's too much of a cold-war aspect to any conflicts with China. Much as there's a lot of bluster on either side both sides are I think smart enough to realize that we can't have any kind of conflict and actually have the world survive. It's the smaller countries that have to fear us, and in turn we have to fear. It's wierd to think about, but those countries that know we have the capability to come in and topple regimes etc that are much more likely to do stupid and desparate things that would incite us to do exactly that.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: ...It's wierd to think about, but those countries that know we have the capability to come in and topple regimes etc that are much more likely to do stupid and desparate things that would incite us to do exactly that.
Why on Earth would one nation incite another to invade it?
The only situation I can see your point coming from is the Isreal-Lebanon conflict, and in reality none of those countries did anything stupid or desperate just to recieve attention from the US or the UN. I think its safe to say that many countries do the opposite, as cited here.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
They don't have to intentionally incite an invasion.
For example, it could be said that Saddam's cat-and-mouse games with arms inspectors throughout the 90s incited the 2003 Iraq War (or at least provided a rationale for it). But Saddam had his own reasons for doing so: to appear strong against the foreigners both domestically and in the Arab world, etc.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: ...It's wierd to think about, but those countries that know we have the capability to come in and topple regimes etc that are much more likely to do stupid and desparate things that would incite us to do exactly that.
Why on Earth would one nation incite another to invade it?
The only situation I can see your point coming from is the Isreal-Lebanon conflict, and in reality none of those countries did anything stupid or desperate just to recieve attention from the US or the UN. I think its safe to say that many countries do the opposite, as cited here.
I read in Time that the leader of Hezbollah said had he known Israel would react in the way it did he would not have kidnappted the soldiers.
Take whatever he says with a grain of salt, its easy to admit error right after everyone claims that you won in the conflict, and everyone thinks that victory demonstrates Allah's favor for your cause.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
To tell the truth I really didn't know where he was coming from with the statement its just I thought that maybe he was referring to the conflict in Isreal. I didn't pay very close attention to it so I thought there might have been some evidence supporting his claim that nations incite invasions from the conflict over there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: It's unrelated to the subject, and I know it's been said before, and will be said again, but please... for the love of all that is holy, Blayne, please type your responses in word using spellcheck and then post them.
Soap, no, I wasn't referring to Israel at all (though some of the same concept does apply there as well).
It's basically the nature of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and what people have been touching on throughout this discussion.
In the cases of the Cold War or here with the US vs China the very fact that a conflict would be so incredibly devastating is why it's not going to happen. This is going to manifest itself in a combination of at least two things: 1) Each side is going to get more leaniency than others (i.e. violating WTO rules, violating UN resolutions, refusing to comply with non-proliferation or war crimes treatys etc...) 2) Each side is going to have to temper some of it's desires (i.e. not invading Taiwan, not being as strict as they'd like when addressing the issues from #1).
I'm not saying that any of the smaller nations are inviting invasion, but I'm saying their position does allow for it a great deal more than China.
i.e. Iran, Iraq, North Korea etc... in part because they are in a more desperate situation (on the world politics front) are more likely to actively/publicly engage in more threatening weapons development/deployment, aggressive actions towards their neighbors etc...
Though, now that I think more about it though it may just be that we are more willing to pay attention and react to the little guys when they do something to piss us off, whereas China would have to do a LOT before we'd be willing to get in even a sideways conflict.
but in any case, if you want to apply the situation to Israel, then I'm sure there is something of this situation going on. Palestinians may have the feeling that at any moment the IDF would come in and attack, and so as a result they are more likely to move in desparation (invoking terrorist actions) which in turn causes the IDF to move in. It's all a viscious cycle.
Basically the larger world powers seem to stand just on the brink of entering that cycle full-force for fear of what that would mean to themselves and everyone else. Unfortunately the smaller nations tend to get sucked in more readily.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mucus: no, China is the 4th largest holder of US debt. By far most of the debt is held either by the government itself or the American people. Only about one third is held abroad.
As for high tensions being devastating because of that, not really. If they hold the debt, it doesn't matter if there are tensions. If they sell off all or a lot of the debt at once that might have some negative effect in the short term, though a much bigger one on them. However, significant tensions between the US and China would increase the willingness of others to purchase US debt as a hedge against currency fluctuations (tensions always do), so there'd be plenty of people to buy it. Our economy would hardly notice it.
My original quote was
quote: China is currently the largest foreign purchaser of US governmental debt.
A. While China is living through one of its greatest historical bubbles, the United States is going though one of the biggest twin scares of the last decade -- the deficits in trade and in the federal budget. What seems to be especially worrying is the foreign ownership of US debt.
Recent US Treasury statistics indicate that almost one third of the debt is held by the Central Banks of Japan and China, and by several central banks in the European Union. This makes the United States susceptible to a major threat that either banks will stop purchasing Treasury Bills or start selling them massively.
Some warnings are already emerging. Recently some central banks in Europe have announced that they will sell off a large portion of their dollar securities out of worries about the twin deficits causing a downward slide in the US currency. Also the central banks of Russia and the United Arab Emirates have allegedly claimed that they may shift out of the dollar in 2007 for the same reason. So the United States must be aware of potential big players' flight from their securities.
If you add to that picture the additional pressures due to tensions, gas prices going up, a US consumer cutting back on purchases, reduced trade in both directions, pre-existing obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so forth, its not a pretty picture.
You're right, if selling bonds was *all* China did, then the economy could deal with it. But with all the above factors, then you have the makings of a perfect storm that could trash *both* economies. And since the US administration is much more dominated by business interests than China's you can bet that they'll go that much further to avoid any problems, let alone tensions. It is just arrogant to say that the economy wouldn't notice it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Mucus: no, China is the 4th largest holder of US debt. By far most of the debt is held either by the government itself or the American people. Only about one third is held abroad.
Wait, I'm confused. The American government owes itself money?
About the intertwined economies, let's not forget Norman Angell and "The Great Illusion". He wrote a book proving that, due to their globalised economies, the Great Powers would hurt themselves so badly by going to war that no rational statesman could consider it. It was published in 1911.
Economic interests are not the only possible interests.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, and as for business dominating the American government, that may be true; but it's expressed over the long term, in the slow crystallisation of laws and departmental policies. War, on the other hand, is a fairly sudden affair; even if Bush has a lot of friends in the oil industry, would he necessarily consider them when he thought about how to respond to, say, an invasion of Taiwan? Would the Congress, if he asked them for a DOW? On a single decision that has to be made quickly, business influence doesn't seem that decisive; it's not as though the politicians would call up their favourite CEOs and ask them what to vote.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The US administration is not more dominated by business interests than China's. Quite the opposite, in fact. China is heavily interventionist among businesses, including using force to change ownership, whereas the US is the most laissez-faire of the major powers (scary as that is).
Its not really possible for all those people to shift out of the dollar and result in some devastating effect. They can't just magically make the debt they own vanish (without losing serious capital and doing the US gov't a spectacularly good turn), they have to sell the debt to somebody else. If a lot of people want to sell debt off, that excess market supply of debt will drive the price of US debt down, until demand again equals supply. Suddenly our debt is an attractive instrument again, albeit after a currency revaluation.
Not to mention that if the trade deficit is so worrisome, this will do wonders to 'fix' it. When more US debt is being sold by foreign governments than bought, that means people in the US are buying the debt. That means US savings goes up, and that means the trade deficit goes down (income-expenditure identity and all that).
And of course, this is all in the short term. We'd probably have a four or five year recession in a worst case scenario -- depression wouldn't set in unless we suddenly started intervening a bunch in the economy. That's bad, but hardly earth-shattering. Life goes on.
If we start trying to futz with our currency, or intervene in the trading of debt, or any of a million other heavy-handed interventionist measures, then we'll have a major economic problem. We're chugging along just fine and likely will even if there's a big bump along the way. The ones frantically trying to adjust their economy with draconian regulations on intermediary goods (like metal production) are the Chinese, because they know they're in for a big crash if they don't deal with the imbalances caused by their currency futzing.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Good point with the "The Great Illusion."
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Wait, I'm confused. The American government owes itself money?
Part of this is a 3-card monty game the government has played between the Social Security system and the general budget for years. It's basically pledges to pay the SS fund sometime in the future for funds that are already past due to it. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And since the US administration is much more dominated by business interests than China's...
*laugh*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: Of all the statements you could have trouble with, thats the one?
China was still killing businessmen up until the Cultural Revolution. Businessmen weren't even allowed into the party until Jiang Zemin's Three Represents. Meanwhile, the influence of companies and lobbyists from the industry is well documented for both the Republicans and Democrats, both of which are in name (and in spirit) capitalist while the CCP is still socialist, (in name, if not toally in spirit).
Hu Jintao's background (and Jiang Zemin) were engineers and many top party officials are military. Bush was an oilman and Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton.
Weird thing to have doubts about.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The US administration is not more dominated by business interests than China's. Quite the opposite, in fact. China is heavily interventionist among businesses, including using force to change ownership, whereas the US is the most laissez-faire of the major powers (scary as that is).
I think we have either a spectacular case of miscommunication or a problem with semantics. China is able to use force and dictate what businesses can do precisely because they aren't dominated by business interests. The businessmen can complain all they want about the strange economic policies that the Chinese leadership has and they will not be heard. The US is laissez-faire precisely because they are dominated by business interests, they've embraced the theories behind a free market economy so well that they've even gone to war to *protect* free trade.
We *must* have a difference in definition or something.
As for how likely people are going to be selling securities, I'm going to listen to a top economist that's on the front page of CNN before I listen to "random guy on the Internet".
Edit to add:
One important point though for Taiwan: Quote anything that I've said, all of my points have been sticking to the OP scenario of the US starting a war over spying. I've always maintained that the US would never start a war. I'm pretty sure I never said anything about whether *China* would start a war
[ October 04, 2006, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
China also wont start a war either they want world opinion to be always on their side and spent the last 2decades building it up, America has void to protect Taiwan yes but also insisted that Chen maintains the status quoand reprimended Chen after he aboloished the unification council and went against his word form the 1997(?) agreements. Taiwan wont de jure declare independance and Beijing knows miantaining the status quo gives Beijing more time to dominate the eocnomics of Taiwan.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the disconnect is that I'm talking about how China frequently uses force on behalf of one business to coerce another business. The first business is often state-owned, but not always, and it is still a business.
Given our extremely good growth record and improving welfare for just about everybody, it would seem our economic policies are pro-people, not pro-business.
Also, the blog I linked to with the graph is a highly ranked economics blog (frequently linked by Mankiw and Cowen, for instance), and they share a similar perspective.
Speaking of Mankiw and Cowen, here are some links that might be of interest. They are two of the top economists in the US and the world.
The person you are quoting is an international finance economist. My arguments are tending towards typical macroeconomic arguments, with a splash of international finance. Some of the things I say are almost identical to those presented as macroeconomist arguments (they're practically textbook answers, after all).
It certainly isn't a resolved point, but my arguments are just as listen-able to as those you linked. The doom and gloom arguments get a lot more play in the media, but there are plenty of major economists sitting on the side of no big deal.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)