# China launches ICBM-capable submarine: Pentagon



## Blindspot (4 Dec 2004)

*China launches ICBM-capable submarine: Pentagon*

40 minutes ago  

WASHINGTON (AP) - China has launched the first submarine in a new class of nuclear subs designed to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles, U.S. defence officials said Friday. 

The submarine is, at a minimum, months away from having missiles installed and going on a cruise, one official said, discussing foreign weapons developments only on condition of anonymity. Still, it is further evidence of China's intentions to expand both its nuclear weapons and submarine forces, officials say. 

It was widely known China was building the new class of nuclear-missile submarine, called the Type 094 but the launch is far ahead of what U.S. intelligence expected, one official said. 

The launch was first reported in the Washington Times newspaper. The newspaper reported U.S. intelligence spotted the sub at a shipyard 400 kilometres from Beijing. 

It would be China's first submarine capable of launching nuclear weapons that could reach the United States from the country's home waters, officials said. 

The Chinese military has also been developing a new class of submarine-launched ballistic missile, called the JL-2, that is expected to have a range in excess of 7,400 kilometres. The Type 094 submarine would carry these missiles but it is not clear whether the missiles are ready for deployment. 

Previously, China has had only one submarine capable of launching nuclear missiles, called the Type 092, or Xia, class. In 2001, a Pentagon (news - web sites) report said the Xia was not operational. Its missiles were of an older class that could fly only 1,000 kilometres. 

Successful cruises by the Type 094 would give China a new strategic deterrent against the United States, no longer limited to land-based ICBMs and weapons carried on aircraft. But U.S. defence officials said China lags behind the United States in its ability to hide submarines from sophisticated sonars and other sensors. 

China is also modernizing its land-based nuclear missile force, replacing its estimated 20 ICBMs with more modern versions. In a report on China's military issued last May, the Pentagon said China's cache of ICBMs could increase to 30 by next year and 60 by 2010. 

Although considered unlikely in the near term, the most likely avenue for conflict between the United States and China is over Taiwan, which China regards as a rogue province. Taiwan is seeking high-technology weaponry from the United States, including diesel submarines and anti-submarine aircraft. 

The United States, France, Russia and the United Kingdom all have submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. 



Now it would seem to me that Canada's need for submarine capability and participation in missile defence has never been greater.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Dec 2004)

Nope..we don't need submarines not at all, after all like the _experts_ point out there is no one out there who may threaten us.  :


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2004)

And no need for BMD either....


----------



## Bograt (5 Dec 2004)

<Sarcasm on> Getting back to the original topic, this shouldn't really be a concern. China is a progressive country and a major trading partner. They wouldn't threaten that. We're friends. Everyone respects us.<sarcasm off>

I wonder if I should get into medicine instead of the military? I bet the Eyes-Ears-Throat business is going through the roof. All those "sticking- our-heads-in-the-sand" related injuries must keep those guys really busy.


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2004)

It definitely looks like an argument for BMD and ASW capabilities (in whatever form they may come).


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2004)

How effective would an Area Air Defence destroyer, armed with Standard SM-6, and posted within a couple of hundred miles of the suspected patrol zone of an ICBM equipped sub,  be in knocking down ICBMs in the boost phase, before they left the atmosphere?

Is that an argument for a Canadian involvement in sea-based Ballistic Missile Defence? I noted that Scott Brison keeps promoting both land-based and sea-based missile defence.

In addition to the Littoral fleet, is there room, like the Dutch for a THAAD capable surface fleet that Ex-Dragoon keeps promoting?  It might not be incompatible with the scenario I laid out on the JSS and the Brown Water versus Blue Water discussion.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2004)

Ship mounted missiles would be effective IF we could keep tabs on where the launch boxes were likely to be. As part of a tiered array, they would be invaluable in increasing the uncertainty factor of any potential enemy considering launching an SLBM, as well as augmenting the power of an BMD shield by deploying during a crisis.

Canada isn't likely to spend the money required to build a Ticonderoga class cruiser mounting the Aegis system (and if we did, it would be foolish to stop at one, at least a dozen would be needed on the west coast to ensure that three are available to patrol off the east coast of Asia...), but we could offer a fleet of microsatellites for space born surveillance and C3I duties, as I have argued in the "No US Missile Defense program in Canada http://army.ca/forums/threads/21883.0.html for a lot less money, and a lot more benefit to us.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Dec 2004)

I thought one of the arguments for the BMD system being proposed was that it would not be wideranging enough to affect the detterence capabilities of China and Russia? I thought it was only to defenc N. America from 1 or 2 missiles from "rogue states" right? If so, why would the launch of a Chinese SSBN be an argument for BMD?



> Getting back to the original topic, this shouldn't really be a concern. China is a progressive country and a major trading partner.



And this isn't true?


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2004)

China is an aggressive state with a small number of ICBM's and limited SLBM capability. In the event of some sort of stand off, like a dispute between China and a third party over sea bed resources, or problems developing between China and North Korea, or (top end) a Chinese invasion of Tiawan, they may threaten the use of their nuclear capability to restrict our range of options. A BMD shield makes that ploy very uncertain for the Chinese, and increases the range of options available to the west.

As well, ship born BMD allows us to go to the scene of the action. If Iran develops its long threatened nuclear capabilities, ships in the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean sea and Indian Ocean pretty much shut down the confident use of IRBMs to threaten neighbouring states. When the threat is removed, the ships can be redeployed.

As for use against mass attack, ship mounted BMD would only be a small shield, it would take an improbable number of billion dollar ships to make an effective shield. Remember Canada would have to build and crew 12 of this type of ship to ensure that 3 can be on station off the east coast of Asia, and they would have to be positioned to respond to Chinese, North Korean and Russian launches


----------



## Bert (7 Dec 2004)

In most ways, I understand the context in which nay-sayers of BMD argue a missile system may
increase the chances of an "arms race".  Events around the world are smoldering in places.  Yet,
the reality of human behavior exists.  Canada may be a bystander in many world events but
arms races, proliferation, and conflict are eveywhere whether we like it or not.  

To muddy the waters even further with yet another Stratfor special...

Japan: Switching from Defense to Offense?
December 06, 2004     1641 GMT

Summary

Japanese Defense Minister Yoshinori Ono has announced a draft of the country's defense plan for 2005 to 2009. The plan, which is expected to be approved by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's Cabinet on Dec. 7, includes provisions for the development of ballistic missiles with enough range to reach Japan's most remote islands. These missiles, if deployed, also will be capable of striking targets on the Asian mainland, such as North Korea, Shanghai and Beijing. The plan also identifies North Korea and China as potential enemies and stresses the need to project power regionally. Although this has been in the works for some years, this official change from Japan's previous pacifist defense policy will cause great concern in the region and escalate the missile race in Asia. 

Analysis

Japan's revision of its defense policy for 2005 to 2009 -- announced by Japanese Defense Minister Yoshinori Ono -- includes research on a ballistic missile intended to counter an invasion of its remote islands. Such a missile also would have the capability to hit targets on the Asian mainland, such as North Korea, Shanghai and Beijing, and would dramatically escalate the missile race in East Asia. The move toward a pre-emptive or offensive capability has been considered in earnest since the August 1998 launch of North Korea's Taepodong missiles, which flew over Japanese territory.

The significance of Japan's policy change is the pace with which new technologies and capabilities geared toward an offensive capability are being considered in defense planning. The Japanese Constitution prohibits Japan from using its armed forces for anything other than defense. Japanese intentions to develop ballistic missiles, along with other provisions in the National Defense Program Outline that would enable Japan to project power regionally, signal Japan's turning away from its defensive policy while holding on to the "Peace Constitution" as a cover. 

Since the end of World War II, Japan's defense policy was based solely on a defensive posture, with no ability to attack or conduct pre-emptive strikes in the region. With memories of World War II-era Japanese brutality in mind, many countries in East Asia often have expressed concern over the prospect of Japan becoming more militarily active in the region. 

The remote islands Ono said would be protected under the proposed defense plan are most likely the southern Ryukyu Islands, which have been the scene of recent Japanese military deployments and Chinese submarine incursions. In an internal meeting Nov. 7, the Japanese Defense Agency identified China as a potential enemy and established three scenarios of possible attacks against Japan by Chinese forces. The Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) also has been shifting its force concentration from northern Japan, where old Cold War doctrine was concerned with threats from the Soviet Union. Japanese forces have been realigning toward southern Japan, Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands, closer to China and Taiwan. Japan and China also are engaged in an ongoing dispute over nearby natural gas fields and the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.





Japan is concerned about other powers' missile development in the region, and will seek to develop a policy of missile defense and pre-emptive strike capability to mitigate threats from China and North Korea. In October, a defense advisory panel recommended to Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi that Japan consider adopting the capabilities to support a strategy of pre-emptive strikes. The recent National Defense Program Outline seems to confirm that Japan will adopt such a strategy.

This change in Japanese defense policy comes amid concerns over North Korean nuclear and missile development and strained relations with China. In November, JSDF units spotted and pursued a Chinese Han class submarine in Japanese territorial waters off Okinawa. Twelve days later, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile, Koizumi's meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao was less than amicable.

Japan is the most recent Asian country to join in the regional missile race. Although the Japanese have had a commercial space lift capability for decades, they have been kept out of ballistic missile development by political considerations. These considerations are no longer an obstacle, and Koizumi's government sees Japan's new policy as more realistic in the context of the regional security climate -- in which China, Taiwan and North Korea have either fielded or are developing ballistic missiles. 

Japan's escalation of the missile race, coupled with turning away from its pacifist defense policy, is cause for major concern in the region. In the climate of increasing missile proliferation in Asia, China already has acquired the S-300P (SA-10 "Grumble") anti-missile system from Russia and likely will continue to expand this capability in response to the latest development from Japan.


----------



## Rushrules (7 Dec 2004)

;D  It looks like everyone is getting in the game ;D.  BTW, Canada did have something called a bowmark missile back in the 60's-70's that was nuclear capable.  This was more for defence against a USSR invasion across Western Europe, but it was never intended to be a defensive weapon, rather offensive.  China's main threat is from India, not N Korea or Taiwan.  It'll make the Yanks think twice about intervening in a police action (I like that word) between China and Taiwan.  

Not that I see anything happening in the far east, since trade is more important there than military might.  Plus, they don't have that much oil


----------



## DJL (7 Dec 2004)

> It looks like everyone is getting in the game .  BTW, Canada did have something called a bowmark missile back in the 60's-70's that was nuclear capable.  This was more for defence against a USSR invasion across Western Europe, but it was never intended to be a defensive weapon, rather offensive.  China's main threat is from India, not N Korea or Taiwan.  It'll make the Yanks think twice about intervening in a police action (I like that word) between China and Taiwan.



I think you might be confusing the Bomarc with the Honest John.

As for the Americans intervening over a conflict between China and Taiwan, BMD will likely have the same affect on the Chinese.........

As for a conflict in Asia, I disagree with you on the premise that China doesn't place that much value on military might.......as made evident by the topic of this thread, not to mention their dramtic increase (and planned increases) in their power projection capability via their navy.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

Somebody correct me but wasn't Canada signed up for three nuclear tipped missiles?

Honest John - Tactical Land-Based Surface to Surface Missile employed by 4 CMBG as a counter to the Soviet FROG.
Genie - Air-to-Air missile to be launched from Voodoos? and Starfighters? against mass formations of Soviet Bombers penetrating Canadian Air Space
Bomarc - Surface to Air missile to back up the Genie armed aircraft 

(and if I remember correctly the sticking point was that Diefenbaker agreed to take the Bomarcs after having been convinced that they were cheaper/more effective than the Arrow which he cancelled and then refused to accept the nuclear warheads to stick on the missiles - rendering them completely ineffective).


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

http://www.user.dccnet.com/welcomewoods/Nuclear_Free_Georgia_Strait/clearwater.html

I did remember correctly.

We had nukes up until 1985, just after Mulroney came to power.

Cheers.


----------



## Bert (7 Dec 2004)

In contrast to Canadian stability and good relations with its neigbhors
(US, Greenland, EU), eastern and southeastern Asia maintain low levels
of conflict.  If the information last paragraph of the following article
is true, then it suggests why Japan is interested in a BMD program
and a primary mode of attack is carried by missiles.  Historically, there
are reasons for Chinese posturing on territory and access to resources.


www.stratfor.com
Taiwan: Elections, Independence and Cross-Strait Tensions

Summary

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian hopes the Dec. 11 Legislative Yuan
elections will give his Pan-Green coalition a majority in Parliament -- a
first step toward enacting independence-oriented constitutional reforms.
Although Chen's coalition might achieve a slim majority, it is unlikely to
win enough seats to change the constitution, though a majority would give
Chen a mandate to continue his pro-independence rhetoric -- ensuring that
cross-strait tensions remain high.

Analysis

Taiwan's Dec. 11 Legislative Yuan elections, pitting President Chen
Shui-bian's Pan-Green coalition against the majority Pan-Blue coalition, will
determine the island's position on independence from mainland China -- at
least in the short term.

Since his re-election in March, Chen and his coalition have been exploiting
independence sentiments on the island, and Chen has called for a reform of
Taiwan's 1947 Constitution to reflect current political realities. Beijing,
however, could consider a revision of the constitution -- which would include
language and provisions that reflect Taiwan's status as an autonomous
political unit -- tantamount to a declaration of independence. Beijing long
has said it would consider a declaration of independence by Taiwan as an act
of war, and that it would invade the island if such a move were to occur.

The People's Republic of China -- mainland China -- considers Taiwan a
"renegade province" that it eventually will reabsorb. On Taiwan, the
Kuomintang (KMT), or Nationalist Party, that leads the Pan-Blues has
considered itself the legitimate government of all of China since 1949, when
the Nationalists fled to Taiwan in the wake of Communist Party victories on
the mainland. The KMT expects to reunite eventually with the mainland under
KMT leadership. A declaration of independence from Taipei, however, would
mean that Taiwan has given up on ever becoming part of a whole China again.

Many observers view the legislative elections as an extension of the very
close presidential election in March, in which independence was the main
issue. The KMT has spent most of the year unsuccessfully contesting Chen's
re-election in Taiwan's courts.

Since he was first elected in 2000, Chen has found his reformist legislation
blocked by the Pan-Blue majority. It is likely Pan-Green will win a slim
majority in the legislature on Dec. 11 -- not enough seats to change the
constitution, but enough to push through other measures that will draw Taiwan
closer to independence.

In addition, Chen recently proposed that Taiwan's major state-owned
enterprises drop the name "China" to avoid confusion with similar enterprises
on the mainland. These include China Airlines, China Steel Corp., China
Shipbuilding and Chinese Petroleum Corp. This is likely to cause further
tension between Beijing and Taipei because names and designations are
important in cross-strait relations. A proposal to add the name "Taiwan" to
Republic of China passports, for example, has caused escalated tensions
between the two.

Ultimately, Chen is probably not serious about an outright declaration of
independence for Taiwan, even though many in his coalition want such a move.
Chen's flirtations with Taiwanese independence have more to do with playing
to Pan-Green pro-independence elements than they do with sincere intentions
in that direction. Chen knows that such a radical action would incite the
Chinese to take some level of military action -- something he and Beijing
wish to avoid for as long as possible.

Also at stake in the legislative elections is an $18.6 billion arms purchase
proposed by the Pan-Greens. The Pan-Blues have argued the weapons are too
expensive and will prompt China to take a more aggressive stance toward
Taiwan. The Pan-Greens have put off the vote on the arms deal until after the
elections, when the coalition's expected majority in the Legislative Yuan
will give the deal a better chance for approval. If the package goes through,
it will certainly escalate the cross-strait arms race and further add to
tensions in the area.

A Pan-Green majority in the Yuan will spark an increase in independence
rhetoric -- and consequently in tensions with Beijing. Chen will lack the
votes to change the constitution or declare independence, but he will be able
to continue pushing for a Taiwanese split from mainland China. China is
unlikely to respond to the rhetoric with military action but, with
approximately 600 of the mainland's DF-21 ballistic missiles pointed at
Taiwan, tensions will remain high.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (10 Dec 2004)

China will be in interesting nations to watch in the next few years. China is rapidly industrializing. Thier oil consumption is going to skyrocket, which will increase competition with other nations for oil, which will likely raise prices globally. 


 :dontpanic:
J.M.


----------



## krugan (10 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> China is an aggressive state ...



a_majoor could you expand on that?


----------



## Bograt (10 Dec 2004)

They certainly are the "ones to watch." Immediately after the 2000 election there was unfortunate incident with the EP-3. Last month, a Chinese sub "accidentally" wondered into Japanese waters. Asian region will be the place of focus in the coming decades (India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Japan, Indonesia). No wonder the Roos are are investing in their capabilities.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2004)

China is aggressive right now in the sense that it is attempting to expand its influence on the international scene both to secure its local hegemony (the traditional view that the surrounding nations are subservient tributaries to the Middle Kingdom) and to limit the power of the United States.

They have done loud sabre rattling against many nations over resources in the South China Sea, political events in Taiwan (even to the extent of firing missiles near the sea lanes leading to Taiwan as part of an "exercise" during the Taiwanese elections), and even against the US after the incident where a Chinese figher jet crashed into an American patrol plane. Their bellicose rhetoric is being matched by a massive military modernization and build up program (including the sub which started the thread), this despite the fact that China is really a very poor nation outside of the coastal economic zones. The Chinese government is also accused of sending "goons" from consular offices to intimidate or physically threaten members of the Gong Fulang (?) movement in western nations.

The growing demand for commodity resources by China is one possible trigger for aggression, Taiwan is another, North Korea collapsing could trigger something depending on how South Korea reacts etc. So I think it is pretty safe to say that China is an agressive nation, and we would do well to watch out backs.


----------



## Bill Smy (10 Dec 2004)

To switch the thrust of the discussion:-

These are some facts quickly pulled off the internet, from sources such as a Rand Research Brief, the CIA Handbook, the Army Area Handbook put out by the University of Missouri and China Today:-

*China Military Expenditures:*

2003 estimate at $60 billion
Increase in 2002 over 2001: 17.6%
3.5 to 5% of GDP

*Army*

Strength of 1.9 to 2.5 million
14,000 tanks
453 helicopters

*Navy*

Strength of 250,000
63 subs (now with this new launch 64)
18 destroyers

*Air Force*

Strength of 470,000
2,556 jet fighters (a $1 billion upgrade in the 1990s)
400 ground attack fighters
A strategic missle force
A space program

*And on top of all that, Canada feels it necessary to send tens of millions of dollars in Foreign Aid.*

 :mg:

Are we stupid or not?   :threat:

 Would it not be far more useful to spend our Foreign Aid dollars somewhere where it's needed? Like the Sudan, Rawanda, Congo, etc

I think my MP (and the PM) needs another rant from me this week-end.


----------



## Bograt (10 Dec 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> They certainly are the "ones to watch." Immediately after the 2000 election there was unfortunate incident with the EP-3. Last month, a Chinese sub "accidentally" wondered into Japanese waters. Asian region will be the place of focus in the coming decades (India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Japan, Indonesia). No wonder the Roos are are investing in their capabilities.



Its probably narsasitic to quote myself, but I just saw this on Globe and Mail; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041210.wjapan1210/BNStory/International/

Japanese defence plan signals end to pacifism

Associated Press   E-mail this Article  
Tokyo â â€ In a shift away from its postwar pacifism, Japan's government overhauled its defence guidelines Friday, easing an arms-export ban and singling out North Korea and China as security threats.

The overhaul, which also allows the government to develop a missile-defence program with the United States, has raised concerns about a slow erosion of the pacifist society Japan built after the Second World War.

The opposition Social Democratic Party, one of the smallest parties in parliament, criticized the government for removing self-imposed controls on military development.

The changes also have been watched uneasily by some of Japan's Asian neighbours, who suffered under Tokyo's expansionist policies in the first half of the last century. The guidelines sought to allay such fears, saying Japan's military would not go on the offensive.

â Å“Our country, under our constitution, will adhere exclusively to self-defence,â ? the report said. â Å“Following our policy of not becoming a major military power that would pose a threat to other countries, we will secure civilian control.â ?

The plan, approved in a cabinet meeting Friday, also calls for Japan to participate in international peacekeeping missions, underscoring Tokyo's efforts to play a global security role that better matches its economic strength.

The revised guidelines fits with Japan's decade-long effort to increase security co-operation with the United States. The pro-U.S. government on Thursday approved a one-year extension of the military's humanitarian mission in Iraq.

The government also authorized an ease to a long-time ban on arms exports to allow for the missile defence program with the United States. The guidelines cited the threats posed by North Korean missiles, China's military buildup and terrorism.

â Å“This is about ensuring security and dealing with new threats as the times change,â ? Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told reporters.

Pyongyang became one of Tokyo's biggest security worries after it test-fired a long-range ballistic missile over Japan in 1998, prompting Tokyo to begin researching missile defence. North Korea also has an active nuclear-weapons development program.

Japan has maintained an arms export ban since 1976. Chief cabinet secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said the government, however, would make exceptions to pursue missile defence with Washington for security purposes.

Ken Jimbo, director of the Japan Forum on International Relations, said the plan signalled that Japan's defence policy was adjusting to a post-Cold War world.

â Å“It's epoch-making that the guidelines now call for a flexible, multifaceted military instead of the stiff military foundation that's been in place until now,â ? Mr. Jimbo said.

The guidelines vowed to maintain the current policy of not making or possessing nuclear weapons. Japan is the only country to have been attacked with nuclear weapons, when the United States twice hit the country in 1945.

The new defence outline, which covers from 2006 to 2014, also singles out China as a security concern, pointing out that Beijing has expanded the range of its military activities at sea and has been modernizing its naval and air force.

Mr. Hosoda played down the reference.

â Å“It does not mean that we consider China a threat,â ? Mr. Hosoda said at a news conference.

Japan's navy went on alert last month when a Chinese submarine was detected in the country's waters between the southern island of Okinawa and Taiwan. Japan says that China apologized, but tensions remain high.

Mr. Jimbo said the new guidelines would likely irritate Beijing but that Japan would also be seeking to deepen ties with its neighbour even as it follows the plan.

â Å“China will undoubtedly express displeasure with the guideline revisions, but Japan can also co-operate with China by expanding exchanges,â ? Mr. Jimbo said. â Å“It's a two-pronged strategy.â ?

The new guidelines followed Tokyo's extension Thursday of its largest foreign military operation since the Second World War. Japan currently has 550 ground troops in Iraq on a humanitarian mission to purify water and rebuild infrastructure. The mission follows the dispatch of the navy to provide logistical support to forces fighting in Afghanistan, a mission launched in 2001.

Acknowledging the budget pressures Japan will face as its population rapidly ages, the guidelines call for cutting the number of ground forces and tanks. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party on Thursday approved a 3.7-per-cent cut in defence spending.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Dec 2004)

I have long been an admirer of the JMSDF. When operating under their own air cover, I don't think any other country in the region, and possibly the rest of the world, could take on the Japanese and win, besides the US. The legislative changes coming to Japan simply reflect what is already established as a fact- the Japanese people are increasingly casting aside the remnants of US influence on their defensive posture. I do not think the Japan of 'empire' will return, but they will certainly act in their own interest against a foreign power should they feel they have to. 

The main concern, IMHO is if China and Japan go head to head in a conflict, will China act irrationally and use WMD, or will Japan pre-empt them somehow? China already is an irrational country, and is constrained only by it's desire to keep up the pretense of a non-aggressive capitalist heaven while falsely promising to rise to the level of an emerging democracy until such time as they think they can move against a target nation with impunity.  

Japan has much to fear and much to lose without putting in place the necessary constitutional mechanisms to enable the reorientation of national security policies.  At least they have the will to do so ...


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Dec 2004)

Whiskey,

How long do you suppose that the Communist Party in Beijing can maintain hegemony over the rest of China?  Between internal ethnic strife (not all Chinese consider themselves ethnically the same), competition between provinces with poorer ones envying richer capitalist ones and Beijing, as well as the rise of a bourgeoisie (even if small and often consisting of "corrupt" Party Members).

Does Taiwan serve the Chinese Communist Party in the same way that the Falklands (Malvinas) served Argentina?  A focus around which discontented domestic elements can rally in common cause?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2004)

As an aside, I was going through the July/August issue of _Foreign Affairs_ and I read an article entitled "The Myth Behind China's Miracle".

Pretty good, the author does a good job of showing how China is not the economic powerhouse that some like to paint it as due to the fact that:

1) A huge percentage of the successful business in China is Wholly Owned Foreign Enterprise.

2) The all-encompassing nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has ensured that no horizontal bonds are drawn between different areas of the domestic market; rather, all links are vertical (between local business and the local Party apparatchik).  It points out that the authoritarian regime has ensured that the Chinese market is actually a hodge-podge of small markets that thrive off nepotism rather than competition.

Sure, it seems unlikely that conflict will break out now due to the fact that the money's a flowin' and China is making efforts to conform to the international system (joining the WTO), but that doesn't mean everything is bound to turn out good.  China is a vast and ancient civilization with a real sense of itself and of its place in history.  Trouble could easily brew up if sudden domestic "meltdown" occurred for some reason.

They don't want to make our cheap toys and shoes forever....


----------



## bossi (10 Dec 2004)

Hmmm ... I wonder what DND could have bought with $19.7 million ... ?
Yup - Canada is subsidising the Chinese military, and neglecting our own
(and thereby allowing the Chinese government to abdicate its' responsibility to the Chinese people, too):



> *Canada helps small farmers in China adapt to global markets *
> 
> (2003-04) News Release
> January 9, 2003
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Dec 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How long do you suppose that the Communist Party in Beijing can maintain hegemony over the rest of China?   Between internal ethnic strife (not all Chinese consider themselves ethnically the same), competition between provinces with poorer ones envying richer capitalist ones and Beijing, as well as the rise of a bourgeoisie (even if small and often consisting of "corrupt" Party Members).



Remove "Chinese", substitute Canada. Remove Communist Party, substitute Liberal Party of Canada, remove Beijing and substitute Toronto/Ottawa as appropriate. Then, add in extremely strong military force with no quams about maintaining the status quo for the government. Fortunately, the last element doesn't apply here, but it sure does over there. Nevertheless, some dynasty's seemingly last forever. 

Time for another glass of Black Bush.*  Cheers.

edit: original post said: "Time for another 3 fingers of Black Bush. Cheers" however, since I married a blonde .... :-X


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Dec 2004)

Jeez Whiskey, git yer heid oot the bottle.

Yer ower depressing efter a drink or twa.

Not as long as the Liberals surely ;D


----------



## bossi (11 Dec 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Remove "Chinese", substitute Canada. Remove Communist Party, substitute Liberal Party of Canada, remove Beijing and substitute Toronto/Ottawa as appropriate. Then, add in extremely strong military force with no quams about maintaining the status quo for the government. Fortunately, the last element doesn't apply here, but it sure does over there. Nevertheless, some dynasty's seemingly last forever.



Call me Don Quixote, but ... I e-mailed my Member of Parliament last night (heck - nothing ventured, nothing gained - maybe he'll hire me ... chuckle - after all, I'm a fellow goalie ...)


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2004)

Between the millions we send to "deserving" nations like Communist China and Russia, and the money we waste on various internal boondoggles, we could bulk up our defense spending and still lower taxes. I suppose we will have to wait until after the revolution (Whats that? we're supposed to defend the establishment _against_ the revolution....).


----------



## krugan (12 Dec 2004)

What is China doing that would cause us concern in regards to our military capabilities?  Do they not have a right to flex their muscle when it comes to national interests and security in their own back yard like the Americans, who for that matter considered all parts of the world their national interest and security?

IMHO I think we have more to fear of the Americans affecting our national interests than China.  What happens when America decides their going to take our fresh water or use our airspace for whatever reason they want.  They've already shown the world they have no regard for International Law or trade disputes, and the people who don't kowtow to reinforce thier interests are discredited i.e., Hans Blix & Mohamed ElBaradei.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2004)

I havn't noticed American missiles landing just outside Halifax Harbour during the last election, nor to members of the 10th mountain division roll across the border unannounced and univited. All nations "flex their muscles" to the extent they are able (Canada seems to have MS or some other paralizing disease), but dollars and rhetoric are to be preffered over raw displays of power.

The actual use of power can also be qualified: are you using it to steal resources or threaten entire populatons to vote your way; or are you liberating populations and returning their resources to them?


----------



## Blindspot (12 Dec 2004)

krugan said:
			
		

> They've already shown the world they have no regard for International Law or trade disputes, and the people who don't kowtow to reinforce thier interests are discredited i.e., Hans Blix & Mohamed ElBaradei.



Good grief. And China is a paragon of Human Rights too.


----------

