Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
China's Nuclear Threat, or How I Learned to Love the Bomb and STFU

By nostalgiphile in Op-Ed
Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:13:22 PM EST
Tags: China, Taiwan, USA, nuclear war, POE, YFI, STFU (all tags)

This past Sunday the Washington Post ran a piece on the possibility of a nuclear war with China. To my knowledge it's the first to appear in such an auspicious publication, so I'll quote it at length:

Given China's appetites and our alliances and interests, a war is not inconceivable in Taiwan, or in Korea. To remove American nuclear escalation from the equation, China would need not parity but only a deterrent such as it has long possessed. The Chinese, however, whose nuclear thresholds are dissimilar to ours, would have other options. They know that every facet of America's economy, military and society depends on individual and networked electronic devices. Were these to fail all at once and irreparably, the nation would seize up, perhaps for years.

Faced with victory, or with loss, they might choose to -- and who would venture to guarantee that they would not? -- detonate half a dozen high-megatonnage nuclear charges in the mesosphere, in an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strike perhaps not even in American airspace, cooking almost every circuit and semiconductor, rendering the American government blind, deaf and dumber than it is already and the country unable to resist the inroads that would surely follow.
Heady stuff, written in a hawkish style reminiscent of the Cold War, but does it add up to a plausible scenario for toe-to-toe nuclear combat?


First, why all the huff about Chinese missiles in the media of late? Is it just anti-China "yellow journalism" or legitimate commentary? I don't know, it could be both, or neither. But one reason Helprin and others are so alarmed is probably China's recently announced 17.8% increase (the largest in a decade) in military "defense" spending for this year. What is this for? Who does China need to be defended from? India? (I think they're busy with Pakistan). Russia? (Last time I checked relations were tip top). Japan? (The ca. 240,000 man 'strong' Self-Defense Force is a threat to no one but itself). The US? (They're not interested. At all). Taiwan? (Yes, it must be the Taiwan threat!).

Another reason why I think the media probably aren't just sounding hawkish, "yellow peril" alarms but actually picking up on China's superpower military ambitions is the PRC's recent experiments in space warfare. Last month the PLA blasted a meterological satellite out of orbit, making it the third country in history to possess weapons of this order and accuracy. As one reporter explained,
The U.S. military conducted dozens of such tests, but only one, in 1985, was like the recent Chinese test, with the Air Force blowing up an aging meteorological satellite. Fourteen years later, a piece of debris from this test came within one mile of the international space station. It took three additional years for this lethal hazard to clear out of low Earth orbit. (The recent Chinese test has produced a much larger debris field at a higher altitude, meaning that the resulting hazard to spaceflight will be much worse.)
The PRC is not proceeding with caution, but rather acting as if this really were a "race" by "sending (intentional) signals". So why the rush? You probably guessed--fear of Taiwan independence. I write this as it appears Taiwan, my adopted home, is reporting the successful test of its Hsiungfeng 2E ballistic missile. Yet, even with a range capable of hitting Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, and several other large Chinese cities, the Taiwanese missile will hardly balance out the 900-1000 ballistic missiles the PRC has aimed at Taiwan from the other side of the Strait.

If you want to know what the average Chinese person's attitude toward the US military is, you need not look far. There was a sensational little article on the FP of Sina.com (biggest news/infotainment site in China) a few weeks ago that sparked a humongous nationalist controversy (read: 3500 replies). The article in question claimed that the US Air Force had, by marking China, Venezuela, and Iran as "threatening" nations, was trying to intimidate China. Here are two "representative replies" to the article translated by a considerate blogger:
Reply 1: The opinion of the four-star general (Michael Moseley) speaks volumes about the hostility the U.S. harbors towards China. It would be great for China if Iran had nuclear weapons. The more countries there are with nuclear weapons, the better it is for China, because it would decrease the odds of a direct China-U.S. conflict.

Reply 2: The United States is deploying F-22s in Okinawa. Treacherous indeed are its intentions. We should act tough, like Russia. Aim medium-range missiles at the Okinawa airport where the F-22s are. If the F-22s invade our air space and violate our sovereignty, our medium-range missiles will strike the airport... By deploying the F-22s in Okinawa the United States is trying to provoke China and disrupt the regional security balance. That is intolerable. We should demand that the U.S. withdraw its F-22s; otherwise, we will deploy medium-range missiles in North Korea, or Venezuela, Cuba and Iran.
A humble, peace-loving people indeed!

To complicate matters even further, in one of his most daringly pro-independence speeches ever, Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian on Sunday announced the need for what he calls Taiwan's "Four Wants." The "Four Wants" (or "Needs," depending on how you translate it) consist of the following:
1) Taiwan independence.
2) A rectification of Taiwan's name (i.e., from "Republic of China" to "Republic of Taiwan" or "Formosa").
3) A rectification of Taiwan's (China-centric) constitution.
4) Increased development (e.g., UN membership)
Significantly, Chen was speaking to the Formosa Association for Public Affairs (FAPA), a pro-Taiwan group that promotes news about Taiwan in Washington and abroad. Speaking to such an audience about Taiwan's four basic needs, he definitely wanted the message to reach US ears. The US was, of course, quite pissed.

The Chinese response was swift and typically belligerent, with the Foreign Minister, Li Zhaoxing, claiming that anyone seeking independence would become a "criminal in history." In Chinese history perhaps a criminal, but in Taiwanese history he would be considered a hero. And therein lies the rub. Like the nationalists of the "Irish Free State" who were regarded as traitors, terrorists, and rebels during the 1920s as they tried to free their country from British suzerainty, Taiwanese nationalists are faced with the same kinds of zealotry and spineless rhetoric from the "international community." The difference is that they (we, in fact) face the threat of nuclear annihilation for daring to assert Taiwan's national sovereignty.

As these grim thoughts of nuclear ballistic holocaust fill my mind, I once again find myself harkening back to 'the good ole days' of the 1980s, when young people like myself stayed up nights worrying about dark words like Mutual Assured Destruction, Nuclear Holocaust, Fallout-Shelter, ICBM, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Only today, given the increasingly volatile economic and political situation in East Asia, the "ideological baggage" we thought we'd left behind at the end of the 80s is being forwarded to us intact, special delivery in the present. The Bomb is making a comeback, my friends.

In part this is because, as one PLA officer so eloquently put it, "The present-day world is none too peaceful, and to protect national security, stability and territorial integrity, we must suitably increase spending on military modernization." Terms like "protect stability," "preserve territorial integrity," and "increase military modernization" don't quite have the charm (or fluency) of the Cold War language of my youth, but nonetheless speak volumes about what the next war, nuclear or otherwise, will likely be about. China's precious right to protect its economic stability, preserve its "territorial integrity," and to "modernize" into space. No matter how prosaic they sound, those are the new Bomb mantras. We must memorize them and learn to love the New No Tomorrow!

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
China's nuclear threat?
o Yes, really serious. 4%
o No, get real. 14%
o Eventually, for sure. 28%
o No time soon, I reckon. 38%
o N057 is a running dog capitalist lackey! 14%

Votes: 21
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o ran a piece
o (EMP)
o recently announced
o in space warfare
o PLA blasted
o "sending (intentional) signals"
o is reporting
o translated by a considerate blogger
o on Sunday announced
o Formosa Association for Public Affairs
o quite pissed
o during the 1920s
o the 1980s
o protect its economic stability
o territoria l integrity
o modernize
o Also by nostalgiphile


Display: Sort:
China's Nuclear Threat, or How I Learned to Love the Bomb and STFU | 141 comments (107 topical, 34 editorial, 2 hidden)
Fuck Taiwan they're idiots anyway (1.60 / 5) (#2)
by balsamic vinigga on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:29:50 PM EST

they coulda become independent 50 years ago but they were greedy and have maintained, until this day, the illusion that they're the true govt. of all of China.  Obviously now they don't have the luxury of declaring their independence this late in the game because that would piss off China and thus the rest of the world.

They had their chance and they blew it. I say they should just bend over and spread their assholes because the tension can't be solved in any way other than war at this point.

---
Please help fund a Filipino Horror Movie. It's been in limbo since 2007 due to lack of funding. Please donate today!

TEH IRONY (none / 1) (#11)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:20:08 PM EST

The average person in Taiwan lives much better than the average person in China.  I would find it hilarious if Taiwan won a nuclear standoff.

Well, for the last year of my life before the fallout cloud catches up to me.  But I'll have the satisfaction of knowing that it either flew over Africa and Europe or California and killed everyone there first.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

we're working on it (none / 1) (#35)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:38:29 PM EST

The Constitution needs first to be revised for exactly the reason you mention. Problem is, efforts to do so are being stymied by the KMT (fascists).

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
ASSumptions (none / 0) (#91)
by Dramacrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:29:21 PM EST

KMT are Fascists? Pretty broad definition of Fascism, eh?

[ Parent ]
Another US/China link (3.00 / 2) (#5)
by wiredog on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:32:45 PM EST

From the Early Warning blog at the Washington Post.

"Early Warning" should get cts et. al. frothing at the mouth, and "Washington Post", being MSM, should get all the lefties doing the same. A double troll! Woo Hoo!


The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage

thanks, Arkin is credible (none / 0) (#139)
by postDigital on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 04:18:09 PM EST

and seems generally unaffected by the political bipolarity. The blog comments are completely different. Chaff preponderates there, often making the process of wheat separation unprofitable.

[ Parent ]
My eyes have been opened (none / 1) (#6)
by Kariik on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:04:42 PM EST

No, really. Lately the focus on China has been in seeing it as an economic threat, and I really had no idea about the situation in Taiwan.

Oh, editorial: "There was an sensational little article on the FP of Sina.com..."

Flesh it out a bit whenever you get the chance, and I think it'll look pretty nice on the front page.

+1 FP

americanistic filth (1.00 / 7) (#8)
by orangomato on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:11:43 PM EST



flawed from the start (none / 1) (#10)
by GhostOfTiber on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 05:07:08 PM EST

Heady stuff, written in a hawkish style reminiscent of the Cold War, but does it add up to a plausible scenario for toe-to-toe nuclear combat?

No.  Pieces of TEMPEST are directed at such ham-fisted tactics and US military equipment cannot be disrupted (or at very least disabled) by a nuclear weapon used in such a fashion.

The second bit you completely miss is that the Taiwanese probably don't trust the Americans since the failure of preventing genocide in Cambodia and cutting and running in Vietnam.  OH LOOK COMMUNISM RETURNS.

Thirdly, the F22 is more than capable of flying across the ocean with in-flight refueling (software nonwithstanding).  Okinawa is the least of your problems.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne

good points except (none / 0) (#24)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:36:33 PM EST

Dude, I'm an American living in TW. OF course I know they don't trust us. Not really communism returns, but LOOK THE BOMB RETURNS!

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
LOL OES NOES (none / 1) (#82)
by GhostOfTiber on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:29:51 PM EST

OK, since you're on the outside looking in, I am curious as to what they think of you personally.  Make up another submission for it.

[Nimey's] wife's ass is my cocksheath. - undermyne
[ Parent ]

TEMPEST and Chinese methods (none / 0) (#106)
by timetrap on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:49:05 PM EST

I agree TEMPEST does count for something, but what of the hundreds of thousands of COTS desktops, servers, routers, and switches? Very little of the computing equipment used on a daily basis is TEMPEST secured. Granted many of the important systems are likely secured (Airforce 1, M1A2 Main Battle Tanks, F-22 [I think], B-2s, etc). But what the main article fails to mention is that China is developing technologies that contain an asymetrical advantage, not a symetrical (ie toe-to-toe) advantage. If China does use Nuclear Weapons to disrupt systems in the US it will be a HUGE wate of time and money they have put into developing Offenseive IT in the PLA. Besides that it will give the US the exuse to turn China into a big sheet of glass.

China will probaly not enter into a full scale war with the US anytime soon. More likely we will not SEE the war (which is already going on, through the internet), we will only see its effects.

Sun Tzu said: "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them."


[ Parent ]
lol @ representative replies (3.00 / 2) (#18)
by zenador on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 07:40:58 PM EST

2 comments of 3500 hand picked by a neo-con wanker publication.

you're quite right (none / 0) (#31)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:18:09 PM EST

I should have included a link to the article w/comments so you can see for yourself what they say. Link.However, unless you're able to read Chinese (GB), I doubt it's worth the trouble.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Ch-1na -1s Bor-1ng (2.77 / 9) (#19)
by Peahippo on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:01:43 PM EST

The United States doesn't fight with nations that can defend themselves. As with any Empire, the United States is a bully, hence a coward, and only assaults weaker nations. Hence, there will be no fight with China. Any Sino-American "conflict" will be relegated to some yelling at the UN, with various backroom arrangements that largely oppress each Empire's subjects (Chinese and US so-called "citizens") -- to be spun in the media to the best advantage, of course!

DUH. The USA is about as likely to go to war with China over Taiwan as it was concerned at all about East Timor. I.e. ZERO chance. Any Chinese takeover of Taiwan (assuming it's done violently, which is not a good assumption anyway) will produce some yelling the UN and then the USA corporate media will spin the takeover as being good for the Taiwanese (i.e. good for the corporations, not the people).


Taiwan Relations Act? (3.00 / 2) (#37)
by nostalgiphile on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:56:25 AM EST

Sect. 2b: "It is the policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States; to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan."

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Keeping their options open (none / 0) (#133)
by mrogers on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:38:58 AM EST

It says "maintain the capacity of the US to resist". It doesn't say the US will actually resist.

[ Parent ]
I have to ask (3.00 / 3) (#65)
by hatshepsut on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:31:18 PM EST

If you find China boring, why read the article, post a comment and bother voting?

I might add that having been to China, having a friend (Canadian) who lived in Taiwan for many years, and generally being interested in what is going on in the world today, I find China much less boring than you apparently do.

The likelihood (or not) of the USA going to war with China is less of a draw for me in this article than many of links which discuss China's recent actions (political, military) and which could (quite conceivably) provide someone who is interested with some ideas about what China is doing and where they want to be (their place on the international stage, so-to-speak) in the next few years.

Please feel free to vote down something that is poorly written, contributes nothing to the community, is a giant troll, or whatever, but this piece is quite well-written, points to some very interesting links and should provide a good forum for K5ers who are interested in international politics to discuss their thoughts. Just because you aren't one of them is no reason to be a jackass about it.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm. (3.00 / 3) (#20)
by eavier on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:06:07 PM EST

Good article mate. +1FP from me.

I sometimes wonder what Japan thinks of all these idiots in its patch and whether its thought about getting a nuke or two itself.

Of course, if it cites China or North Korea for getting its own nukes, that pretty much provides a rationale for Vietnam to get their own as well, seeing as China & Vietnam have never been that great a buddies. The rest of South East Asia would probably follow suit. And once Indonesia had one you can bet a couple of dozen BBQ'd shrimps that Australia would get them pretty smartly as well.

A nice big glass of proliferation anyone?

Whatever you do, don't take it into your house. It's probably full of Greeks. - Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi

Ufology Doktor in da house

don't be forgetting the nukular proliferation (none / 1) (#89)
by bunk on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:16:29 PM EST

in the land of a thousand sheep shaggers


hunger strike + bong hits = super munchies -- horny smurf
[ Parent ]
dude, (none / 0) (#135)
by eavier on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:15:20 PM EST

we're nukular free remember. Hell, we don't even have an air force, let alone missile capability.

Whatever you do, don't take it into your house. It's probably full of Greeks. - Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi

Ufology Doktor in da house

[ Parent ]
Global Thermonuclear War (3.00 / 2) (#21)
by kromagg on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:10:29 PM EST

China might very well think the time ripe to force the Taiwan issue. After all, the US is looking a bit overextended, what with starting wars all over the known world. They know not even the US can afford the use of nuclear weapons against China and since UN treaties are no longer worth the paper they're printed on, why shouldn't China go ahead and claim what they believe to be rightfully theirs?

starting wars all over the known world (none / 0) (#49)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:14:39 AM EST

I wasn't aware that USia was starting wars in South America, North America, Asia, Europe, or anywhere else outside of East Africa and Iraq.

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

Proxy wars, mofo. /nt (none / 0) (#51)
by ksandstr on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:41:02 AM EST



[ Parent ]
What proxies does USia have fighting (none / 0) (#58)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:38:37 AM EST

In North and South America, Europe, Africa outside of East Africa, or Asia?

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

Kosovo? (none / 0) (#92)
by smallstepforman on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:52:54 PM EST

30,000 troops stationed there, on what is essentially occupied territory.

[ Parent ]
Those aren't proxies (none / 1) (#97)
by wiredog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:59:55 AM EST

and they aren't in combat. The US troops are there mainly to keep the Serbs and Kosovars from shooting at each other. Yes, it would be better if the EU handled the Yugoslavia situation itself. Or didn't handle it, as in the Sudan, either way they should be dealing with it. But the US troops are there, no proxies, and it isn't a war.

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

hyperbole (none / 0) (#69)
by kromagg on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:17:39 PM EST

The important part of my point is that wars are expensive and the US can't afford to start another one, not while it's losing the other two. I wouldn't put it past Bush to try, but just how much punishment can the US economy take?

Oh, does the war on drugs count btw? Doesn't the US have troups in south america somewhere?

[ Parent ]

The worry here is (none / 0) (#77)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:27:04 PM EST

Do the Taiwanese, Japanese, and South Koreans think the US is overextended, and what will they do about the PRC (and each other)? Those are 3 countries that can have nukes any time they want...

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

Just because you weren't aware (none / 0) (#134)
by mrogers on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:50:42 AM EST

doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

[ Parent ]
what will happen (2.00 / 4) (#25)
by circletimessquare on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:41:38 PM EST

china is not going to attack anyone as long as the economy is roaring: they'd lose too much in economic repercussions

however, if/ when the chinese economy melts down, there's nothing to lose. additionally, the resulting social strife will create demonstrations to reform. many will be thinking "time for democracy"

the solution? what you then need to keep power is a distraction

hmmm... a nice distraction from people's daily concerns... hmmm

time to invade taiwan!

people rally around the government in times of war, they always do. it's a circle-the-wagons impulse whenever hostilities break out. anyone who speaks out against the government in war time, even if it's a toally different issue, isn't "real" chinese. in war, it's nationalism or you're with the enemy. dissent is simply not tolerated

calls for reform would quickly be snuffed out

and of course, china would win taiwan over easily. what happens after that?

japan and the usa and south korea, and even vietnam (their history with china is not a happy one, they were invaded by china in the early 1980s) would get together and worry about it. the rest of the world, including russia, would just back away from the situation, too much to lose, not enough to gain. australia would get involved, maybe even indonesia. these countries would huddle together, look at each other, and weight their options

what happens after that is anyone's guess

if it's war? heh. i don't even want to think about it. not funny at all

let's just say the philippines worries a fuck about this. when the usa fought japan, where do you think the battlelines were formed? right down the middle of manila. the philippines was pulverized because of war between their larger neighbors. so after china quickly engulfs taiwain, it will start to look to secure it's hold. and the usa and allies will be looking to mass troops somewhere close by... hello philippines. then china would be forced to act against the massing forces there

if the usa and china went to war, ever, the battle would occur in the philippines. that country would be turned into a ghostland. the philippines knows this, worries about this, and hates it

so whatever you think about the hell that would be war with china, just be glad you're not filipino. that entire country would make the firebombing of dresden in wwii look like a picnic

so: as long as the asian markets are healthy, war with china will never ever happen. but if/ when you hear news about the economy melting down, heads up: taiwan is fucked in a few months/ years


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

the Philippines? (3.00 / 2) (#28)
by nostalgiphile on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:04:26 PM EST

The Philippines? Are you living in the 1930s? The battle lines have changed, dude. Japan is on our side, we got the Philippines back just like we said we would, the junta in Thailand is happy to cooperate w/us, India is stepping up its defenses against China, and Taiwan is trying to get under a missile defense shield w/Japan and the US. They are encircled to some extent, but an alliance of undemocratic countries (Russia, China, N. Korea) could still pose enough of a threat that nuclear weapons could be used against them.

Ironically, the only 'wild card' is Vietnam (Although they are socialists, they hate the Chinese far more than even the most rabid Taiwan nationalist). All that being said, I believe the Philippines will be spared devastation this time around.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
wrong and wrong (none / 1) (#50)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:16:40 AM EST

india would back off, it has too much to lose and not enough to gain by getting involved

russia would back off, too much to lose, not enough to gain

furthermore, the battleline would still be in the philippines: say china takes taiwan and the us and allies want to get it back. ok: open your mapbook, look at the closest friendly land mass for coordinating the attack/ recovery

thank you very much


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

my map is on the wall (3.00 / 4) (#54)
by nostalgiphile on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:14:41 AM EST

but it still tells me Japan is the most proximate land mass for staging a counter-attack.

And India is boosting border defenses because it perceives China as a threat to its "territorial integrity" again--i.e., in places like Arunachal Pradesh (referred to as "South Tibet" by the Chinese). In 1962 they fought a war there with China--believe it or not, cts, despite their both having a lot to lose in the struggle. I don't see why you keep coming back to this no brainer "countries will not fight wars if they have too much to lose" idea. I mean, name me one war where both sides had nothing to lose, okay? Fact is, every war is stupid, irrational, a lose-lose scenario, and completely fucking barbaric. You're kidding yourself if you think economic interests always trump ideological or religious ones. In fact, if the history of the 20th cent should have taught you anything, it's that the opposite is usually true--ideological/religious motives will usually overrule concerns about "profit" or potential losses in lives or power. That's why they suck man.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
snore... (1.00 / 6) (#73)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:11:29 PM EST

i actually don't think china will invade taiwan because of the very reasons you list above

i also believe india will never go to war with china, read up; on recent history between the countries numbskull, not 1962

furthermore, if the chinese economy tanks, a demagogue in beijing will consider riding the wave of nationalism by invading taiwan very seriously- in spite of eveyr observation you made above

there were germans in pre-nazi germany who thought of war very much as you did too you know. the existence of what you say being true, and i agree it is true, just a syou say, does not mean china won't invade taiwan if it fell under economic duress

in other words, just because something is wron gand stupid, doesn't mean someone won't do it. because of more pressing concerns, like retaining a grip on power

get it?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You are SO right cts. (none / 1) (#118)
by Corwin06 on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:17:43 AM EST

The Origins Of War


"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
china would win taiwan over easily (none / 0) (#47)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:13:10 AM EST

Don't bet on it. Tiawan is one of those countries (Japan and South Korea being two others) that could have nukes, and means to deliver them, any time they wanted.
The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]
whether or not taiwan has nukes (1.00 / 2) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:07:35 PM EST

whether or not china already has a plan to neutralize them
whether or not the taiwanese would nuke their fellow chinese

on the other side of these observations means nukes mean nothing at all when it comes to china invading taiwan


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What if the Tiawanese (none / 0) (#76)
by wiredog on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:24:54 PM EST

nuke the beachheads? The question, really, isn't what will the Tiawanese do, it's what does the PRC think they will do? Is the PRC deterrable?

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

taiwan is not nuking china, ever (none / 1) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:39:45 PM EST

#1: any reaction that provoked the taiwanese to nuke will only result in china reacting 10 stronger than it did before the nuking. it has no deterrent effect, in this situation

because for china AND taiwan, it's about nationalism, not imperialism or the cold war

it's like the state of florida declared independence- it's not going to nuke the usa. it wants to be free, but not to that extreme of killing their fellow americans

nationalistic feelings != nukes

remember, for china AND taiwan, this is an "internal" matter

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Japan has no nukes (none / 1) (#79)
by tetsuwan on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:09:49 PM EST

Or totally incompetent reporters. If they have and someone tells it in public, it would be the single greatest political scandal since the second world war. Easily. No-one in the vicinity of power has even spoken about the benefits of getting the bomb. The public embraces a global ban on nukes.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

He didn't say they HAD nukes (none / 1) (#80)
by Cro Magnon on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:03:39 PM EST

He said they could develop them anytime they wanted to. It would take a total disaster for them to CHOOSE to go nuclear, but they certainly have to ability to do so.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
It was quite ambiguous what he meant (none / 1) (#81)
by tetsuwan on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:09:11 PM EST

actually.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Ambiguous? How? (3.00 / 2) (#98)
by wiredog on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:01:09 AM EST

Japan can build nukes any time they want them. How is that ambiguous?

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

parentheses (none / 0) (#113)
by basj on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 03:29:32 AM EST

(that could have nukes) (and means to deliver them, any time they wanted)

versus

(that could have nukes (and means to deliver them, ) any time they wanted)

--
Complete the Three Year Plan in five years!
[ Parent ]

no bombs but (2.00 / 2) (#99)
by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:23:00 AM EST

japan, like france, embraces nuclear power. even though they were nuked, being a developed country with little natural energy resources overcomes the usual reticence that encompasses attitudes towards nuclear power in the west... although, considering that we fund al qaeda through our petroleum dependency, we should have probably gone majority nuke power like france japan too

meaning: japan doesn't have the bomb. but they could have it extremely quickly. only political and popular support stand in the way, and that can be changed really quickly if firecrackers start going off in the far east, considering the rise of chinese nationalism that, as one of its fundamental tenets, is the loathing of japan


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

there is a BIG difference (none / 0) (#100)
by sye on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:23:13 AM EST

between not having one made already ( hence the risk of falling into wrong hands and having to release its energy in the future when its original designers are all dead...) and have the capability of building one really fast.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

what's the big difference? nt (none / 0) (#101)
by circletimessquare on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:35:10 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
China's market is the "sick man" of asia (none / 1) (#130)
by SnowBlind on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:39:04 PM EST

Economic's between the US and China are complicated by two major issues:

1. China's currency is pinned to ours at the current rate.
2. Because of that pinning, the Chinese hold a great deal of dollars.

Normally, when a country like China sells a country like us huge amounts of exports and gets dollars in return, eventually the dollar falls and those cheap goods are not so cheap anymore. See Japan in the 70's and 80's.

China has artifically frozen that process to keep selling goods to us at cut rate costs. Some estimates are as bad as 50% undervalued, but I think it is more like 25%.

Holding all those dollars was fine until the dollar tanked against the EU.. and suddenly China has an delima with it's two biggest customers!

1. Relax the Yuan and lose the American market and have current dollar based assets dive by 15% to 50%.
2. Don't relax the Yuan and have the EU eating them alive with the trade advantage. Also, continue to build the imbalance until the dam breaks.

China's market is just itching to spin out of control. The tanking that occurred in the last few weaks was just a taste of what is to come...

I am of the opinon that China's biggest threat is India, but that the confrontation is still 10 to 20 years away. More likely scenario is that the Coming Plague will do in China, India and Pakistan long before the nuclear weapons.  

There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.
[ Parent ]

remember, this is why you will die (2.77 / 9) (#27)
by guidoreichstadter on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:02:28 PM EST

because the leaders of the largest and most advanced economies on earth thought that pouring thousands of lives, millions of working hours, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year into preparing the groundwork for mutual annhilation was preferable to making a comparable committment to achieving biological human immortality within your lifetime


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
And then once we achieve immortality (3.00 / 2) (#29)
by ensignyu on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:07:56 PM EST

Population will skyrocket, available resources will dwindle, and we'll get into wars over who controls these resources.

[ Parent ]
doubtful (none / 1) (#30)
by guidoreichstadter on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:09:40 PM EST

that we'd remain recognizably human much beyond immortality


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
Maybe in form (3.00 / 3) (#78)
by cburke on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:50:56 PM EST

Unless your immortality also comes with a free perpetual motion machine, then we will still need to make use of finite resources.  

Meaning the only "recognizably human" trait that would need to remain is our tendency to use organized violence to settle the question of who gets the resources and who doesn't.

[ Parent ]

here are some (none / 0) (#93)
by guidoreichstadter on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:33:56 PM EST

resources


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
Oh, I get it (none / 0) (#102)
by cburke on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:43:28 PM EST

And the perpetual motion machine is how you both get to those resources and survive long enough to get them.  Easy-peasy!

[ Parent ]
so (none / 0) (#107)
by guidoreichstadter on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:04:29 PM EST

do you want to live forever, or just complain?


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
I'll just enjoy my limited time on earth, thanks (2.50 / 2) (#110)
by cburke on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:52:07 PM EST

Neither of us are going to live forever.  You have a problem with this.  I don't.  You can keep complaining about how the government refuses to focus on your impossible goal, and I'll stay attached to reality.  The one who is happiest is the one who keeps their expectations within the realm of reason, for the unreasonable expectation can never be met, leading only to dissapointment.  And more complaining.


[ Parent ]
the only way to be sure (none / 0) (#111)
by guidoreichstadter on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:27:52 PM EST

you're going to die is by deciding to die. It's hardly unreasonable to believe that the attainment of immortality is within the reach of a concerted international effort. If not for your own benefit, then for the benefit of your children and millions of others? Why would your life be any less happy if the US & China spent 100's of billions a year on the life saving & enhancing medical research that is a necessary prelude to immortality rather than on, say, invasions & cruise missiles?


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
That will not happen (none / 1) (#119)
by Corwin06 on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:24:00 AM EST

Because if no one was ever dead in the last 30 generations, we'd have no more than twice the amount of currently living people.
"and you sir, in an argument in a thread with a troll in a story no one is reading in a backwater website, you're a fucking genius
--circletimessquare
[ Parent ]
i love crackpots (1.33 / 3) (#74)
by circletimessquare on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:34:18 PM EST

because the leaders of the largest and most advanced economies on earth thought that pouring thousands of lives, millions of working hours, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year into preparing the groundwork for mutual annhilation was preferable to making a tastier cupcake

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Just think! (3.00 / 3) (#84)
by wobblywizard on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:39:33 PM EST

What delicious and oh so yummy cup cakes we would have, if all that defense money was spent on cup cake r&d!

--
You never win an argument with anyone who fucks you or signs your paychecks. I just smile, bite my lip and sip my drink. --Philalawyer
[ Parent ]

once more your antihuman philosophy on display (none / 0) (#109)
by guidoreichstadter on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:10:00 PM EST

for all to see


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
I love this... (none / 0) (#96)
by thefirelane on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:42:24 AM EST

To you, all problems are solved. Food, clean drinking water, shelter....

News flash, instead of worrying about 'immortality', most of the world is worrying about '40'

Of course, one of the easiest ways for them to reach `40' is having a large powerful military which gives them the political and military ability to secure resources that will allow them to achieve `40'. This is what the west has already done, and what other countries are trying to do.

How to prevent other countries from conquering you, and lowering your longevity? By making your own military as well.

In short, you are a very lucky person indeed that so many of your typical human problems are solved that you have to worry about immortality.

Of course, the real reason you'll never see immortality is that you probably live a very sedentary lifestyle and will die of a heart attack... but of course, its easier to ask monumental efforts of other people than to stop posting on K5 and go for a run!

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
i'm a little unclear (none / 0) (#108)
by guidoreichstadter on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:08:27 PM EST

do you want to die or not?


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
Would you want to live forever? (none / 0) (#114)
by thefirelane on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:38:22 AM EST

If it required that you kill 1,000 people.. what about 1,000 every year? Because that's the point I was making with my previous post.

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
maybe (none / 0) (#116)
by guidoreichstadter on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:44:03 PM EST

technically, no one has to die. socially, there are obstacles to this. the way forward is to solve this issue, not dissolve yourself. Solving this issue involves the ascendance of cooperative altruism, and the displacement of the current order.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
Amen brother! (none / 0) (#142)
by Klom Dark on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:56:17 PM EST

Someone of my own mindset!

We are so technologically close to massively expanding the human lifespan, that it is just incomprehensible that this is not the major focus of the entire world.

Boost a thousand years now, then you've got a thousand years to work on the next 10,000 years, and so on.

But instead, the smallbrains wish to have their childish "The toy is MINE" wars and waste time.

[ Parent ]

please collect your scout badge (2.50 / 6) (#39)
by GrubbyBeardedHermit on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:43:44 AM EST

for meme propagation

GBH

I was aiming for a Troll medal (3.00 / 3) (#40)
by nostalgiphile on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:10:40 AM EST

but a Meme Scout Badge will do just fine, thx!

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
[ Parent ]
Just to be clear (3.00 / 6) (#45)
by BJH on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:36:58 AM EST

Japan does indeed have an army, air force and navy. Their military budget, while much lower than most modern nations as a percentage of GDP, is in absolute terms the fourth or fifth largest in the world.

However, with Japan's current constitution it is unable to engage in anything other than defensive actions. Every now and then some politician overseas tries to get local mileage out of ranting about Japanese remilitarization, but really, it ain't happening. The only way the Japanese government would be able to get support for direct military action is if the country suffered a blatant attack from a foreign power (such as the DPRK).

That said, most Japanese are very wary of China's military buildup (and it is a buildup, make no mistake, although Chinese politicians do their best to distract attention away from that fact). The Japanese government's policy of late is to buddy up with the US even more than they had until now, obviously in the hope that things in Asia do go to shit, the US will help pull their cojones out of the fire.

Taiwan, unfortunately, is in a much worse position in that there's no great motivation for other countries to come to their aid in the event that China does decide to take it over, as they've threatened to do many times. Whether that would go nuclear is, I think, very unlikely - China loses either way.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

Japan's Military Budget (none / 0) (#137)
by rlazur on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:02:23 AM EST

Did it sink to 4th or 5th largest in the world in the past few years?  I know that in at least 2003 Japan still had the largest military budget (2% of its GDP) second to the United States.  Japan pays for the best weaponry it can including Aegis cruisers.

China can generate tons of propaganda against Japan with Japan's increasing participation as an active military in the United Nations, however I don't believe the Japanese government and people are capable of making an act of aggression at this time.  It still probably motivates the Chinese into thinking about Japan as an 'aggressor' with the 2nd largest military spending budget in the world.

[ Parent ]

I'm for reunification (2.28 / 7) (#48)
by emohiphop on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:14:23 AM EST

The PR should become part of Taiwan

Taoism's rationale (none / 1) (#83)
by sye on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:38:23 PM EST

Chapter 61:
A great country is like the lowland which all streams flow...

Modern Chinese translation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

George Carlin was right (2.33 / 6) (#55)
by Enlarged to Show Texture on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:20:08 AM EST

The production, testing, and usage of weaponry is intended to show that the weapon's owner is more well endowed than those on the receiving end of it...


"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Isaac Asimov
I didn't read this yet (1.00 / 3) (#56)
by B0sk on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:21:18 AM EST

because of my add, but I FPed it anyway because the title was enough anyway.

__________________
Wikipedia power structure (illustrated)
aw geez jxg (3.00 / 2) (#86)
by B0sk on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:13:29 PM EST

why the heck did yer zero me? I am still an educated man, I know that N057 would have put rational thought into this, and whether or not I agree with it, it is easily as worthy of FP as most of the trash there now.

__________________
Wikipedia power structure (illustrated)
[ Parent ]
Because comments discussing the way you voted (none / 1) (#103)
by jxg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:54:40 PM EST

and nothing else should be editorial if they must be made at all.

[ Parent ]
we should help China (2.00 / 3) (#64)
by army of phred on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:41:27 AM EST

invade Taiwan, with our modern weapon systems and China troops, Taiwan should be relatively easy, this will help our relations with China, only a few hundred thousand innocents will die, and most importantly, this will please Walmart's corporate board.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
You can't invade what you already own... (none / 0) (#95)
by joto on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:44:54 AM EST

Taiwan is already a part of China. It makes as much sense for China to invade Taiwan, as it makes for China to invade Hong Kong. As to why it should lead to people dying is beyond me.

[ Parent ]

in that case (none / 1) (#105)
by army of phred on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:20:28 PM EST

China should send a couple of cops over there and arrest the trash talkers for creating a public disturbance. After all, its not like China has freedom of speech or anything, right?

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
+1 SP (1.33 / 3) (#70)
by kromagg on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:18:31 PM EST

wish you fleshed it out a bit more, good for discussion purposes.

WWLBD (none / 1) (#90)
by Dramacrat on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:24:13 PM EST

What would Liu Bei do?

FREE TIBET!!!! (3.00 / 4) (#94)
by terryfunk on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:52:15 PM EST

not likely to happen but enjoyed the article a lot. In fact, it would be nice if you were the China correspondent and submitted something every month or so.

I am endlessly fascinated with China.

I like you, I'll kill you last. - Killer Clown
The ScuttledMonkey: A Story Collection

Next up: Osama bin Laden, as US correspondent (none / 1) (#104)
by jxg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 03:56:18 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Um (none / 1) (#112)
by trhurler on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:28:17 PM EST

You realize that if China destroyed OUR satellites, they'd also have to destroy everybody elses' including their own, and that we could then use our far superior nuclear arsenal to wipe them out with no advance notice whatsoever, right? Yeah, they'll do that. This stuff must have been written by scared high school kids or something.

And remember, the Chinese nuclear arsenal, nasty though it is, mostly can't reach us - and what can would be damaging but survivable (as a nation, that is,) whereas we could and almost certainly would remove them from the face of the planet.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Yeah, right. (none / 0) (#115)
by V on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:52:07 PM EST

You still lost vietnam to a ragtag band of chinks. Get over it already.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]

You might not have noticed... (none / 0) (#120)
by skyknight on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:14:33 AM EST

but we didn't nuke Vietnam.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
True (none / 0) (#122)
by trhurler on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:54:28 PM EST

We also didn't bomb their airfields and didn't do a lot of other things that WOULD have won that war, purely for political reasons. We didn't really "lose" so much as Johnson decided not to call the bluff of the Chinese and Russians. Of course, he should have, because there's no way they'd have started WWIII over a small country with basically no economic output to speak of, but he didn't, because he was a simpering pussy.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
People don't seem to understand... (2.66 / 3) (#127)
by skyknight on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 08:30:42 AM EST

that there are different kinds of wars. It's a frequent occurrence currently for columnists to bemoan that Gulf War II is taking far longer than the whole US involvement in WWII. That, however, is a preposterous comparison, as what is actually taking time in Iraq is occupation and counter-insurgency, not beating a state actor. Yes, the US screwed up this Iraq misadventure, but the comparisons being drawn to WWII are asinine. The piece of GWII that is analogous to WWII took on the order of a week. The armchair ass-hats can't seem to distinguish between occupying terrain and destroying industrial infrastructure.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
It's true (none / 0) (#132)
by cburke on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:39:39 PM EST

That, however, is a preposterous comparison, as what is actually taking time in Iraq is occupation and counter-insurgency, not beating a state actor. Yes, the US screwed up this Iraq misadventure, but the comparisons being drawn to WWII are asinine. The piece of GWII that is analogous to WWII took on the order of a week.  The armchair ass-hats can't seem to distinguish between occupying terrain and destroying industrial infrastructure.

It's true.  Importantly, we lost Vietnam and are going to lose Iraq for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of ordinance we dropped, whether or not we bombed airfields, or anything else having to do with conventional WWII-style military tactics.  The portion of Iraq that had anything to do with WWII was also the least important part of the invasion.

Neither the Commander in Chief, trhurler, nor pacifist pansies seem to be able to understand this.

Sadly the Commander in Chief is no arm-chair asshat.  He's the asshat who is actually making the decision to continue down a course of action that is founded on the belief that there was a WWII-style military victory to be had in Vietnam, if only we had stayed longer and been more resolute.

He will be proven wrong just like everyone who is fundamentally wrong about the nature of the problem they are solving ends up being wrong.

[ Parent ]

okay no comparison (none / 1) (#128)
by kromagg on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 06:44:18 PM EST

But seriously. What is up with you guys and the vietnam war. You lost, face it. There's no point in saying "oh but we could have won if we did xyz". No shit sherlock, the same could be said for the germans after WWII, only difference being they got their country invaded, you just got kicked out of someone else's.

[ Parent ]
And whose fault was that? (none / 1) (#124)
by V on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:01:13 PM EST

If you decide not to win it is still a loss.

Get over it already.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]

Right (none / 0) (#123)
by trhurler on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:54:54 PM EST

See reply to skyknight, who is dead on as usual.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
See my reply to skynight. I'm dead on as usual. (none / 0) (#125)
by V on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:02:22 PM EST


---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]
PRC Foreign Minister on Taiwan (none / 0) (#117)
by nostalgiphile on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:23:46 PM EST

When a reporter asked Minister Li about China's policy on Taiwan, Li answered: "All policies follow the will of the motherland and will of the people."
"Do you mean you want them to vote?" a female Taiwanese reporter asked.
Li Zhaoxing (laughing): "This question is a tricky one. The answer is No. No!" linky

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
Various other reasons (none / 1) (#121)
by TDS on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:35:35 AM EST


First, why all the huff about Chinese missiles in the media of late? Is it just anti-China "yellow journalism" or legitimate commentary? I don't know, it could be both, or neither. But one reason Helprin and others are so alarmed is probably China's recently announced 17.8% increase (the largest in a decade) in military "defense" spending for this year. What is this for? Who does China need to be defended from? India? (I think they're busy with Pakistan). Russia? (Last time I checked relations were tip top). Japan? (The ca. 240,000 man 'strong' Self-Defense Force is a threat to no one but itself). The US? (They're not interested. At all). Taiwan? (Yes, it must be the Taiwan threat!).

Centralised economy. Defence spending, as the US proves, can be largely a matter of job creation and pumping funding into industry. There are also issues of national prestige, which as hooting redneck yanks [see about 100 comments below this one] again prove is for some people to do with how many guns you have, not other alternative forms of prestige such as how the vulnerable in society are treated. Finally, as you might have noticed, China is well on the way to effectively owning half of Africa and securing other stakes in the wider world, sometimes to do with the supply of oil and other resources. In that sense then China, like the US and the UK in the past has no choice but to ramp up military spending and has to be prepared for intervention outside homeland defence for mixed reasons of self-interest and perceived obligation. Of course since the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption without evidence "defence" can legitimately mean anything you damn well want it to mean.

In short, China has a lot of reasons to increase defence spending that are not to do with any single specific ambition.

And when we die, we will die with our hands unbound. This is why we fight.

Timing (none / 0) (#126)
by Scrymarch on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 04:06:55 AM EST

Hey, good article, looked like you sneaked this onto the front page midweek when I wasn't looking.

Where do you think the timing of the Olympics falls in all these calculations? What about this year's Taiwanese elections?

Preventive war (none / 0) (#129)
by svampa on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 07:45:54 PM EST

I have a deja vu with Iraq, is USA government is preparing USA public opinion for a preventive war against China?.

By the way, I have read similar openings to Given China's appetites and our alliances and interests... somewhere

In an Indian newspaper:

Given China's appetties and USA's appetties...

And one more from a Chiness newspaper:

Given our growing necessities and USA's appetties...

Swahilli Saying: When Elephants fight, the grass cries.



Electromagnetic Pulse/EMP weapons (none / 1) (#131)
by student on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 04:23:28 PM EST

Your quote is innacurate.  An EMP will not destroy electronic equipment.  Wikipedia gets it right.  Very long cables (but not fiber) and vacuum tubes (which fail constantly anyway) would be the only things that would notice a pulse.  An EMP is easily countered by including your electronics in a metal box - look at your computer, and you will notice that it is inclosed in a metal case for exactly this reason (there are frequent natural EMPs- lightning and ESD from carpets).  Long cables could be protected using circuit breakers.  Even if these fail, you can bet that major communications backbones have spare network hardware that can be used to replace what is fried in minutes.  It is likely that your lights would go out because the breakers in your house would be triggered by the EMP, but once the breakers are turned back on all your electronics should return to normal.  The value of an EMP weapon is primarily that it blinds the enemy's defences.  If you're launching a missile at an aircraft carrier, the carrier's tracking radar could be shut down for a few seconds, possibly preventing the launch of countermeasures.


Simon's Rock College of Bard, a college for younger scholars.
the linked article is a terrible article (none / 0) (#136)
by Perianwyr on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:55:46 AM EST

Your insight is decent but that article FUCKING SUCKS. It hardly deserves a footnote.

guidoreichstadter's immortality (none / 0) (#138)
by luggage on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 05:55:33 PM EST


"It's hardly unreasonable to believe that the attainment of immortality is within the reach of a concerted international effort"

WOW! Bush supporter, eh? We have a problem? Let's throw money at it!

Humans do many a stupid thing for a simple reason they believe that the only interference in equation is human action. Alas, as they very soon learn (and some never), Universe refuses to collaborate. Think of Santa Claus.

I'm getting very tired of the people whose view of the surrounding "reality" is so anthropocentric that it borderlines on pscychosis. With the result being always the same - somebody telling me how to live my life. Whether they want to prevent death from smoking, high speed, alcohol, drugs, too much masturbation - it doesn't matter, they still BELIEVE they can prevent it. Because all that matters is only coming into equation from human action.

Let me tell you something - you die because whoever or whatever created this Universe didn't contemplate existence of Life in it. Life as we speak of it is called life because it draws the energy from the surrounding area and uses it to diminish local entropy - thus violating the law. To help you focus better, life as we speak of it is made by interactions between particles of certain type that, by last calculations, might make only 6% of the matter present in this Universe. Enough to feel in the right place? Meaning totally insignificant and just here because of the extremely lucky coincidence or because of the poor planning of the entity that might or might not project this Universe.

No matter how strong this might make the argument of somebody or something actually PLANNING to plant Life in this Universe agains all odds - humans were not that entity. So they can hardly change the state of affairs since the original planner didn't contemplate a floating expiration date.

Long story short - you have many God-given rights, but immortality is not one of them. Now be a big boy and suck it up.

And, please, pretty please, whatever you do, don't try to make this world a "better" place. Not unless you clearly define "better" so we can meaningfully talk about it. Thank you.

"No matter how fast light travels it finds darkness
has always got there first and is waiting for it"

lies, damn lies, and your mama's a statistician (none / 0) (#140)
by postDigital on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 05:24:49 PM EST

A bit of statistical analysis needs to be inserted into this discussion. There is a reason why China's increases in defense expenditures are expressed by the MSM in percentages rather than other means, hyperbole. Here are a few other perspectives which were quickly scraped off of the net:

In terms of US dollars, the current CIA factbook's 2005 estimates of military expenditures in US Dollars are:

  1. United States $ 518,100,000,000
  2. China $ 81,480,000,000

Which if expressed in a percentage: China's 2005 defense spending levels were 15.7% of the USA's expenditures.

Global Security dot org's table of World Wide Military Expenditures estimates that all countries combined expend $950 billion, and the US share of that is $466 billion. Again, expressed in percentages: the US military expenditures are 49.1% of world's total military expenditures.

Nation Master dot com provides an analysis which can be used to distort China's impact via the use of the extreme variances in population bases: the military expenditure in dollars/per capita. China fails to appear in the top twenty on that list:

  • 1: Israel - - $1,429.03 per person
  • 2: Singapore - - $1,009.94 per person
  • 3: United States - - $935.64 per person
  • 4: New Caledonia - - $888.25 per person
  • 5: Brunei - - $885.43 per person
  • 6: Kuwait - - $842.17 per person
  • 7: Qatar - - $837.73 per person
  • 8: Oman - - $807.46 per person
  • 9: France - - $766.62 per person
  • 10: Bahrain - - $764.44 per person
  • 11: Saudi Arabia - - $692.71 per person
  • 12: Norway - - $677.77 per person
  • 13: United Arab Emirates - - $624.27 per person
  • 14: Greece - - $573.68 per person
  • 15: Australia - - $566.95 per person
  • 16: United Kingdom - - $524.48 per person
  • 17: Cyprus - - $492.22 per person
  • 18: Sweden - - $488.23 per person
  • 19: Germany - - $470.70 per person
  • 20: Denmark - - $454.71 per person
  • [. . .]
  • 79: China - - $42.80 per person

Nation Master dot com also provides a military expenditure analysis based on dollars/GDP:

  • 1: Oman - - $1.12 per $10 of GDP
  • 2: Eritrea - - $1.04 per $10 of GDP
  • 3: Ethiopia - - $0.99 per $10 of GDP
  • 4: Afghanistan - - $0.91 per $10 of GDP
  • 5: Mali - - $0.86 per $10 of GDP
  • 6: Israel - - $0.76 per $10 of GDP
  • 7: Saudi Arabia - - $0.73 per $10 of GDP
  • 8: Jordan - - $0.68 per $10 of GDP
  • 9: Burundi - - $0.64 per $10 of GDP
  • 10: Iran - - $0.60 per $10 of GDP
  • [. . .]
  • 28: China - - $0.34 per $10 of GDP
  • [. . .]
  • 46: United States - - $0.24 per $10 of GDP

After looking at the top ten in this list, I'd advise caution before extrapolating this data for usage when comparing US/China military capabilities. Also, transformations of these statistics using balance of trade figures could wreak havoc on any implications.



Brinkmanship (none / 0) (#141)
by postDigital on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 06:09:36 PM EST

can be defined as a contest between world leaders; powermongering fucks all afflicted with swollen prostates who compete on the edge of the cliff overlooking the void in a pissing contest straight into the howling wind. The winner being adjudged to the first twit who is able to take a leak without wetting his trousers, stockings and shoes.

One can only hope for level heads prevailing at policy conception/implementation levels, and that persons schooled in cultural differences are allowed credible input. Chinese tend to take long views, based across generations, which is hard for westerners to comprehend. We are talking about a culture whose dynastic history included flood remediation using only peasant power to move the course of mighty rivers over periods of kiloyears.

What this implies regarding Chinese elite's valuation of individuals is obscene, to say the least. Hive mentality is repugnant. At the same time, this long-view should be considered when mainland issues bellicose threats across the Taiwan Strait. China considers Taiwan to be a prodigal son, still within their sphere. They look enviously at the manufacturing base, and its economic output. As long as Taiwan doesn't do anything extreme to upset the current equilibrium, it is very unlikely that mainland would engage in military action to take control of what they already believe is theirs, thereby destroying a significant chunk of their valuable preexistent economic base. The mainland government is able to perceive this in a long view, and are willing to play this out over generations, as long as they continue to believe that Taiwan is that prodigal son, destined to return to their fold.

The future is clouded with the uncertainties of book thumpers in opposition: {Bible< ->Mao's Little Red Book}, and the additive of a Taiwanese political party's ascension to power which is comprised of Manchurian hammer-heads who venerate the black dragon lady, Madame Chiang-kai-shek, only increases the instability.



China's Nuclear Threat, or How I Learned to Love the Bomb and STFU | 141 comments (107 topical, 34 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!