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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
that violates various international treaties in regards to weaponizing space.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Blayne was referring to Mucus' analysis of China's strategy and/or the strategy itself.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If China is easily ahead with pebble bed nuclear reactor reserach why wouldnt they be ahead in something else?
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
*mimics annoucner over speaker phone* And Mucus scores 3 points for the red team!
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
