Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread
- Thread starter nULL
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,483
- Points
- 1,160
The report may or may not be alarmist but it does raise a real and potentially alarming prospect.
But all may not be all gloom and doom
On the plus side (at least as far as the report is concerned) as the report seems to suggest, bigger is better in that China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil and the EU if taken as a whole certainly have a lot of moral authority as governments representing very large numbers of bodies. They would have more if all the governments were democratically elected. They certainly are wealthy and becoming wealthier and they are all technologically capable.
But there may be a "fly in the ointment". Centrifugal forces.
The European intelligentsia is fighting an uphill battle to convince its "peasantry" that one big government is a good idea. It seems to have some currency in "Old Europe", especially amongst those that know all the words to the "Internationale", but less so in Northern Europe, Southern Europe and New Europe. All of whom treasure their independence.
India, China and Indonesia are all having to deal with separatist elements and as people become more wealthy, educated and involved with the world at large there is no reason to assume that those countries couldn't go the way of Russia, the British, Dutch, French and Spanish Empires as well as the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. (An Empire is just an envious description of a very large State). They couldn't hold against the wishes of large numbers of people. What makes us so sure that the Tibetans, Mongols, Han, Dayaks, Punjabis, Tamils will lie down and play dead. The evidence from all over, including in Africa (think Eritrea and the Democratic Republic of Congo) is the constant slicing of territory, division of peoples and proliferation of states.
While China and India become wealthier will they remain cohesive? Maybe the pressures won't show by 2020 but how long after that? And will the EU really be anything different than any of the other Empires that have come and gone within Europe?
15 years is too long for me to be placing bets on a sure outcome.
Having said that I do think that that very uncertainty, and the prospect of increasing uncertainty, demands that Canada, like every other State, prepares itself to be able to defend vigourously its citizens and its interests at home an abroad.
But all may not be all gloom and doom
On the plus side (at least as far as the report is concerned) as the report seems to suggest, bigger is better in that China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil and the EU if taken as a whole certainly have a lot of moral authority as governments representing very large numbers of bodies. They would have more if all the governments were democratically elected. They certainly are wealthy and becoming wealthier and they are all technologically capable.
But there may be a "fly in the ointment". Centrifugal forces.
The European intelligentsia is fighting an uphill battle to convince its "peasantry" that one big government is a good idea. It seems to have some currency in "Old Europe", especially amongst those that know all the words to the "Internationale", but less so in Northern Europe, Southern Europe and New Europe. All of whom treasure their independence.
India, China and Indonesia are all having to deal with separatist elements and as people become more wealthy, educated and involved with the world at large there is no reason to assume that those countries couldn't go the way of Russia, the British, Dutch, French and Spanish Empires as well as the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. (An Empire is just an envious description of a very large State). They couldn't hold against the wishes of large numbers of people. What makes us so sure that the Tibetans, Mongols, Han, Dayaks, Punjabis, Tamils will lie down and play dead. The evidence from all over, including in Africa (think Eritrea and the Democratic Republic of Congo) is the constant slicing of territory, division of peoples and proliferation of states.
While China and India become wealthier will they remain cohesive? Maybe the pressures won't show by 2020 but how long after that? And will the EU really be anything different than any of the other Empires that have come and gone within Europe?
15 years is too long for me to be placing bets on a sure outcome.
Having said that I do think that that very uncertainty, and the prospect of increasing uncertainty, demands that Canada, like every other State, prepares itself to be able to defend vigourously its citizens and its interests at home an abroad.
I for one wouldn't mind a more level playing field in terms of there being another major global player besides the United States. I mean no disrespect to our American friends south of the border, but in terms of America's current policies - it wouldn't hurt for there to be another global player, such as the EU. During the Cold War, America had to rely just as much on moral highground and ethical superiority as it did military might, since the USSR outweighed the American military in terms of heavy industry. Both sides were evenly matched in terms of strategic deployment of nuclear missiles, hence MAD.
Now that there is no official "second power" in the world - the US no longer has to rely on the moral highground in order to win over the rest of the world's support. As we've all seen very recently in regards to the US war on Iraq, the US no longer has to think as heavily about how its policies may be interpreted by the world's citizens, since the US believes they no longer have to win over their hearts and minds in the face of a national adversary of equal or greater power. This decline in the US moral highground may go unchecked until either another US leader is put in power, or until another global force emerges that causes the US to pause and remember that winning the hearts of the world's citizens is more important than being able to control them via foreign and defense policy.
Lets tell the rest of the world there are WMD in Iraq, and invade them at great human and financial cost. And, almost 1.5yrs after the end of "major combat operations", lets officially say that no - we were mistaken, there were no WMD. However, we did manage to oust Saddam - that has to count for something, right? Lets not officially say we're going to start racial profiling at our airports - after all...its not like we have a history of racial prejudice or anything. But at the same time, lets give everybody who has a darker skin complexion the gears, after all - they might be from either the Middle East or South America. Lets tell the rest of the world that they are either with us, or against us - after all, its not like we're supposed to respect the viewpoints or listen to the ideas of other countries, right? Oh, but how dare they challenge us! They are either with us, or against us - whats so hard that the rest of the world can't understand? Sheesh.
Okay, so some of the above might have been embellished just a little bit - but the points remain the same. We in Canada might see American foreign policy different than people in the US, China, or the Middle East. We share a border, we have common interests, we share cultural values, we share a similar system of criminal justice and corrections - Canada and the US are essentially very good friends, despite whatever snit we might get into sometimes. But for people in the EU, China, or the Middle East - they don't have the luxury of a relationship with the US that we do. People in the regions mentioned above might see the above paragraph as being more true to life, whereas we in Canada might see it as a bit of an embellishment and exaggeration.
The underlying point to all of this is; a foreign power who has the will and the means to challenge the United States will force the US to start fighting for the moral highground again. I'm not saying the US has turned into an evil empire by any means; but lets face the real world - the US has some foreign policies that really do cause a lot of people to shudder. The US is its own worst enemy - terrorism is a byproduct of continued arrogance. Its hard for us in the west to truly understand this; it wasn't until my wife and I were in Tehran last year that we really understood the foundation of terrorism. Yes - there are extremists out there who would rather kill innocent people than change their way of life - and a bullet to the head would warrant no objection from me. But, a lot of those the US calls "terrorists" perhaps aren't as extreme as the western media makes them out to be. Or perhaps they weren't, before the current conflict. Remember the quote: Perception is Reality? Well if certain groups of people in the Middle East PERCEIVE and BELIEVE their religion is coming under attack, that is their REALITY. And if there is one thing I learned to respect about the Muslim religion in my experiences over the course of 7 months in Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt - is that they will do anything that they feel is necessary to protect their religion. The real problem lies not just with the groups of actual terrorists or extremists out there - but with the sense of urgency groups within the Muslim world feel as if they are under attack from the west.
I could rant on about this for a long time - but I implore you to think about this issue BROADLY. Think about certain, specific instances in the past - and in the present, in the form of both military action and developments in foreign policy. If the United States wanted to continue to dominate the globe militarily, it could easily do so. If the US managed its economy better, and was determined to continue to dominate the world in terms of economic and military power, it could be done - don't ever doubt the US' ability to accomplish a goal. However, unless the US has the ability to regain the trust and empathy of the world's citizens, I can't help but see a foreign power gaining enough influence to challenge American policy and influence. I don't mean to sound alarmist in the sense that it will lead to armed conflict, but unless the US can gain the trust of the people of the world yet again, a foreign power might not have to match the US military capability in order to influence global politics.
Now that there is no official "second power" in the world - the US no longer has to rely on the moral highground in order to win over the rest of the world's support. As we've all seen very recently in regards to the US war on Iraq, the US no longer has to think as heavily about how its policies may be interpreted by the world's citizens, since the US believes they no longer have to win over their hearts and minds in the face of a national adversary of equal or greater power. This decline in the US moral highground may go unchecked until either another US leader is put in power, or until another global force emerges that causes the US to pause and remember that winning the hearts of the world's citizens is more important than being able to control them via foreign and defense policy.
Lets tell the rest of the world there are WMD in Iraq, and invade them at great human and financial cost. And, almost 1.5yrs after the end of "major combat operations", lets officially say that no - we were mistaken, there were no WMD. However, we did manage to oust Saddam - that has to count for something, right? Lets not officially say we're going to start racial profiling at our airports - after all...its not like we have a history of racial prejudice or anything. But at the same time, lets give everybody who has a darker skin complexion the gears, after all - they might be from either the Middle East or South America. Lets tell the rest of the world that they are either with us, or against us - after all, its not like we're supposed to respect the viewpoints or listen to the ideas of other countries, right? Oh, but how dare they challenge us! They are either with us, or against us - whats so hard that the rest of the world can't understand? Sheesh.
Okay, so some of the above might have been embellished just a little bit - but the points remain the same. We in Canada might see American foreign policy different than people in the US, China, or the Middle East. We share a border, we have common interests, we share cultural values, we share a similar system of criminal justice and corrections - Canada and the US are essentially very good friends, despite whatever snit we might get into sometimes. But for people in the EU, China, or the Middle East - they don't have the luxury of a relationship with the US that we do. People in the regions mentioned above might see the above paragraph as being more true to life, whereas we in Canada might see it as a bit of an embellishment and exaggeration.
The underlying point to all of this is; a foreign power who has the will and the means to challenge the United States will force the US to start fighting for the moral highground again. I'm not saying the US has turned into an evil empire by any means; but lets face the real world - the US has some foreign policies that really do cause a lot of people to shudder. The US is its own worst enemy - terrorism is a byproduct of continued arrogance. Its hard for us in the west to truly understand this; it wasn't until my wife and I were in Tehran last year that we really understood the foundation of terrorism. Yes - there are extremists out there who would rather kill innocent people than change their way of life - and a bullet to the head would warrant no objection from me. But, a lot of those the US calls "terrorists" perhaps aren't as extreme as the western media makes them out to be. Or perhaps they weren't, before the current conflict. Remember the quote: Perception is Reality? Well if certain groups of people in the Middle East PERCEIVE and BELIEVE their religion is coming under attack, that is their REALITY. And if there is one thing I learned to respect about the Muslim religion in my experiences over the course of 7 months in Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt - is that they will do anything that they feel is necessary to protect their religion. The real problem lies not just with the groups of actual terrorists or extremists out there - but with the sense of urgency groups within the Muslim world feel as if they are under attack from the west.
I could rant on about this for a long time - but I implore you to think about this issue BROADLY. Think about certain, specific instances in the past - and in the present, in the form of both military action and developments in foreign policy. If the United States wanted to continue to dominate the globe militarily, it could easily do so. If the US managed its economy better, and was determined to continue to dominate the world in terms of economic and military power, it could be done - don't ever doubt the US' ability to accomplish a goal. However, unless the US has the ability to regain the trust and empathy of the world's citizens, I can't help but see a foreign power gaining enough influence to challenge American policy and influence. I don't mean to sound alarmist in the sense that it will lead to armed conflict, but unless the US can gain the trust of the people of the world yet again, a foreign power might not have to match the US military capability in order to influence global politics.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I'm not sure that the emergence of a peer competitor might not have exactly the opposite effect of what you are looking for. And I would also question whether, upon close examination, we would really find that US foreign policy in the Cold War and pre-911 world was driven any less by "RealPolitik" and any more by "altruism" than it is driven now. America, like any major power, deploys its forces based on its national interests. It cannot justify the risk and expense to its electorate in any other way. It was so in both WW's (hence their late entry in both cases) and IMHO it remains true today. "Fuzzy internationalism", as represented by the UN, has never really appealed to the US except for that short period following WWII in which they were instrumental in establishing that institution and offering it a home. Their committment to NATO (secured to a certain extent through Canadian diplomatic efforts under the St Laurent govt) was an anomaly for the US up to that point. Show me one major world power that has ever made a serious committment based solely on altruistic reasons as opposed to a calculation of risk vs national interest.
Cheers
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Does this not sound familiar in Canada.
Why Austria Selected Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon?
By Georg Mader
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_476.shtml
â Å“For almost 40 years, Austria, meanwhile the 7th or 8th richest nation in the World, had always been told by the former Social-Democratic- (SPOE) administration (the best friends of 'neutral' Sweden) that "nobody is going to attack or harm us...", "what much more social and humanitarian work we could do with that money...". This standpoint created a climate of "...we have Congress-places with UN, Mozart, our ski-aces, fine food and vine, etc...". Eventually this resulted in there being absolutely no dedication to defence or to the understanding of a collective-security in the Austrian public: the media and half of the politics educated Austrians that way for 40 years. â Å“
One of the important reasons that Canada must not lose its military tradition is exactly because the US may not be a Hyper Power forever, infact it is for Mutual Defence that we must not revert to a overly motivated police force. If we continue to erode our military capability instead of building it backup to where we can actually add to the security of the free world, then our leaders will doom us to a Neville Chamberlain like debacle some time in the future.
Despots can always find money to rebuild their tank battalions and submarine fleets, but in the free world tax payers are usually far more selective with what our governments spend money on. :threat: We must continue to add to the mutual security of our neighbors or else we will doom our own freedom.
MHO
Why Austria Selected Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon?
By Georg Mader
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_476.shtml
â Å“For almost 40 years, Austria, meanwhile the 7th or 8th richest nation in the World, had always been told by the former Social-Democratic- (SPOE) administration (the best friends of 'neutral' Sweden) that "nobody is going to attack or harm us...", "what much more social and humanitarian work we could do with that money...". This standpoint created a climate of "...we have Congress-places with UN, Mozart, our ski-aces, fine food and vine, etc...". Eventually this resulted in there being absolutely no dedication to defence or to the understanding of a collective-security in the Austrian public: the media and half of the politics educated Austrians that way for 40 years. â Å“
One of the important reasons that Canada must not lose its military tradition is exactly because the US may not be a Hyper Power forever, infact it is for Mutual Defence that we must not revert to a overly motivated police force. If we continue to erode our military capability instead of building it backup to where we can actually add to the security of the free world, then our leaders will doom us to a Neville Chamberlain like debacle some time in the future.
Despots can always find money to rebuild their tank battalions and submarine fleets, but in the free world tax payers are usually far more selective with what our governments spend money on. :threat: We must continue to add to the mutual security of our neighbors or else we will doom our own freedom.
MHO
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37089-2005Feb19.html?
The Chinese to my mind have one primary goal, unification of Taiwan. The Twainese are unlikely to voluntarily become part of the PRC.
The Chinese are working hard on training troops in amphibious operations and are building amphibious warfare ships. They are acquiring top shelf combat aircraft and air to air weapons. They have obtained the Sunburn a very potent anti-ship weapon. PLAN subs have been trying to get close to USN battlegroups. If their goal is to take Taiwan they must be ready to deal with the 7th Fleet.
The Chinese to my mind have one primary goal, unification of Taiwan. The Twainese are unlikely to voluntarily become part of the PRC.
The Chinese are working hard on training troops in amphibious operations and are building amphibious warfare ships. They are acquiring top shelf combat aircraft and air to air weapons. They have obtained the Sunburn a very potent anti-ship weapon. PLAN subs have been trying to get close to USN battlegroups. If their goal is to take Taiwan they must be ready to deal with the 7th Fleet.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
A buddy emailed me a link to a Fox News report that tomorrow Japan may for the first time announce that they will join US efforts to protect Taiwan against a possible Chinese Invasion.
Link for Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/index.html
Then look for a link on the right hand side called "Wall of Security".
Very interesting indeed....
Kudos to Japan. I wish Canada would politically make the same statement, rather than selling out at every opportunity to obtain more Nortel and Bombardier orders.
Matthew. :
Link for Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/index.html
Then look for a link on the right hand side called "Wall of Security".
Very interesting indeed....
Kudos to Japan. I wish Canada would politically make the same statement, rather than selling out at every opportunity to obtain more Nortel and Bombardier orders.
Matthew. :
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Fighting China will taks more than straight "head to head" combat in the seas off Tiawan. Look for revolutionary American and alliance strategies, including counter-invading the Chinese mainland, opening a second front with India, unleashing a devastating cyberattack which affects LINUX (China being a holdout against using Microsoft products) or something equally "out of the box".
As for Canada, if we are so craven in dealing with the "Republia Serbska" or the Sudan; it is hard to imagine the Liberal establishment standing up to a real predetory power like China. I only want to see the look on Paul Martins face when he finds out that Canada's "Magic Pixie Dust" doesn't work at the UN anymore (and indeed realizes IT NEVER DID).
As for Canada, if we are so craven in dealing with the "Republia Serbska" or the Sudan; it is hard to imagine the Liberal establishment standing up to a real predetory power like China. I only want to see the look on Paul Martins face when he finds out that Canada's "Magic Pixie Dust" doesn't work at the UN anymore (and indeed realizes IT NEVER DID).
- Reaction score
- 6,145
- Points
- 1,260
I think the resources China needs â “ and the need is massive and pressing â “ lie at its doorstep, in Siberia.
The Yenisey River is the natural boundary between Sino-Asia and Eurasia.*
The areas around and especially East of the Yenisey are one of the worlds last great untapped resource treasure-houses. Many Chinese, including influential officials in the CPC, believe that Central and Eastern Siberia are Chinese and that Western Siberia (along with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, etc) can be and should be a Chinese fiefdom.
It may be that the next really big war will be between China and Russia â “ with Siberia as the prize. Our (the American led West) strategy will be challenging; we will, almost certainly, split â “ Europe (save, perhaps the far North-West (Britain, Iceland and Norway, especially)) will likely support Russia. Australia, India and Japan will also, likely, favour Russia; they will all, I think, be wrong â “ on the wrong side of history, in any event.
Taiwan is a real problem but, when all is said and done, Taiwan is part of China. The trick, for us, is to convince the Chinese that they can have Taiwan whenever they want it, without a fight ... all they have to do is reform their own political system. Taiwan will ... wants to, I think ... rejoin a democratic, law abiding China.
----------
* This puts the area between the Urals (the generally accepted Eastern limits of Europe) and the Yenisey in an interesting category; I think they may become a huge, modern version of the march (Welsh border) of a thousand years ago. If so then China will play the role of the Normans, from the South East, dominating the region through some local variations of 11th century marcher lords, until it slips, seamlessly into Greater China.
The Yenisey River is the natural boundary between Sino-Asia and Eurasia.*
The areas around and especially East of the Yenisey are one of the worlds last great untapped resource treasure-houses. Many Chinese, including influential officials in the CPC, believe that Central and Eastern Siberia are Chinese and that Western Siberia (along with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, etc) can be and should be a Chinese fiefdom.
It may be that the next really big war will be between China and Russia â “ with Siberia as the prize. Our (the American led West) strategy will be challenging; we will, almost certainly, split â “ Europe (save, perhaps the far North-West (Britain, Iceland and Norway, especially)) will likely support Russia. Australia, India and Japan will also, likely, favour Russia; they will all, I think, be wrong â “ on the wrong side of history, in any event.
Taiwan is a real problem but, when all is said and done, Taiwan is part of China. The trick, for us, is to convince the Chinese that they can have Taiwan whenever they want it, without a fight ... all they have to do is reform their own political system. Taiwan will ... wants to, I think ... rejoin a democratic, law abiding China.
----------
* This puts the area between the Urals (the generally accepted Eastern limits of Europe) and the Yenisey in an interesting category; I think they may become a huge, modern version of the march (Welsh border) of a thousand years ago. If so then China will play the role of the Normans, from the South East, dominating the region through some local variations of 11th century marcher lords, until it slips, seamlessly into Greater China.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Even in the bad old days when we were all practicing REFORGER for possible WWIII in Germany, the Soviets never lowered their defences in the east. They have too many memories of eastern invasion, and will never, under any political system or regieme permit an inch of mainland Siberia to fall to the Chinese. Both the Russians and Chinese are aware that the Russians are not rational on this issue (and good on them) and that should the Chinese move east, China will be nuked from the face of the planet, and if that means the end of civilization on earth and 80% of the Russian population, so be it. This attitude is entirely responsible for the Chinese focus elsewhere. No pressure the west could exert will force Russian leadership to cede Siberia, or access to its resources to China. Why do you think the Chinese are buying up mining concerns in North and South America, when the same untapped resources could be developed in a cost effective manner in Siberia with Sino/Russian cooperation? Because the Russians know better than to let the Dragon get its claws into Siberia, and get an appetite for its riches. If the Taiwanese were a nuclear power, the world would be a vastly more interesting place.
- Reaction score
- 6,145
- Points
- 1,260
21st century Russia is a paper tiger, and the Chinese know it.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
20th century Russia was a steel fist, using their nuclear aresenel to force NATO to keep conflicts on the conventional scale where they figured their numbers could bury our technology. 21st Century Russia has lost the steel fist, and is reduced to a clumsy iron finger or two, their nuclear arsenel is now moved from the bottom, to a place alarmingly far up their strategy tree. They were safer playing to win; now they are in a position where there options may only include losing alone, or everybody losing together, and their national character is not one that embraces losing gracefully. A paper tiger, with one plutonium derived Dragonkilling grenade, and the will to use it.Edward Campbell said:
- Reaction score
- 6,145
- Points
- 1,260
I think - no authoritative references - the Chinese think:
"¢ The Russian nuclear arsenal is poorly maintained, maybe less than 10% of the 1985 capacity and that in another ten years it will be, essentially, worthless;
"¢ The Chinese medium range nuclear arsenal is big enough to deter, at least intimidate the Russians;
"¢ The Russian military is in precipitous decline - unable to deploy into the East in any useful strength;
"¢ The Chinese only have to take Siberia to win - they don't have to go to Moscow;
"¢ The Russians have to make it all the way to Shanghai or they lose; and
"¢ Even if the Chinese nuclear calculus is wrong, China can absorb everything Russia can throw and then rise up, quickly and murderously from the ashes, and ravage the Russians - tossing them back into barbarism.
Talking about quantity vs. quality, US Senator Sam Nunn used to say: â ?Quantity has a quality all its ownâ ? - a remark which was made for China. Like Fitzgerald's rich, the Chinese, too, are different and we err if we apply Western values to their strategic calculus.
"¢ The Russian nuclear arsenal is poorly maintained, maybe less than 10% of the 1985 capacity and that in another ten years it will be, essentially, worthless;
"¢ The Chinese medium range nuclear arsenal is big enough to deter, at least intimidate the Russians;
"¢ The Russian military is in precipitous decline - unable to deploy into the East in any useful strength;
"¢ The Chinese only have to take Siberia to win - they don't have to go to Moscow;
"¢ The Russians have to make it all the way to Shanghai or they lose; and
"¢ Even if the Chinese nuclear calculus is wrong, China can absorb everything Russia can throw and then rise up, quickly and murderously from the ashes, and ravage the Russians - tossing them back into barbarism.
Talking about quantity vs. quality, US Senator Sam Nunn used to say: â ?Quantity has a quality all its ownâ ? - a remark which was made for China. Like Fitzgerald's rich, the Chinese, too, are different and we err if we apply Western values to their strategic calculus.
- Reaction score
- 2,291
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
LOL, I agree. I don't think Shania Twain's island empire off of New Zealand wants to be part of the PRC. [this must be the territory which the Twainese inhabit!].
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
The Chinese system is overstrained as it is, they have billions they can feed as long as nothing goes wrong. Their economy is as strained as Imperial Japan in the 1930-40's for resources They cannot absorb a nuclear attack without the wheels comming off. Russia has no chance to win a confrontation with China at the moment, or for the forseeable future. They can make sure China does not survive. Would China go down swinging? Lets just say that I'd hate to share a land border with someone that combination of desperate and strong. If China and Russia ever negotiated in good faith, the West would be in a world of hurt. As it is, there is a better chance of Osama bin Ladin getting the Republican nomination for Texas Governor than the Russians and Chinese agreeing opening the Manchurian border to serious trade and economic joint development.Edward Campbell said:
- Reaction score
- 6,145
- Points
- 1,260
mainerjohnthomas said:
Yes, I agree, partially. The system is strained but they can feed their billions even when some things go wrong â “ sometimes even when many things go wrong.
Agreed, and they are determined â “ absolutely determined â “ to have learned the right lessons from Japan in the '30s.
I don't think they agree ... quite the contrary, as far as I can tell from my reading, they are confident that they can and will be the last man standing in any war with anyone except, maybe, a West which includes India.
The Chinese seem to share this view.
Once again, the Chinese do not agree; we may not like their calculus, but it is theirs.
Me too ... the Chinese plan, I think, to win without swinging, at all, much less going down. Some Chinese are talking, right now, about simply populating Siberia so that, in 20+/- years the facts on the ground mean it is theirs. The key point, for the Chinese, I think, again, is that they are not afraid of Russia; they are not afraid of a war with Russia; they are not afraid of total war with Russia â “ worried, to be sure, but not afraid.
Agreed ... but this is, fortunately for us, an emnity which has endured for a thousand years - deeper than anything in Europe.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
China may face a variation of the question which drove Imperial Japan during the 1930s. One faction of the Imperial staff (the Army, I believe), wanted to invade Siberia and take the rich resources available there. The other faction (led by the Navy) , thought the amount of investment and time needed to bring these resources on line would be far to great, better to look south and take the already developed resources from French Indochina, the Dutch East Indies, the British Empire, where there was available labour, infrastructure and open mines, oil wells, working farms....
Fast forward to the 21rst century, and the same conditions apply. An interesting conundrum for the Central Committee.
Fast forward to the 21rst century, and the same conditions apply. An interesting conundrum for the Central Committee.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Edward Campbell said:
I think that is their attitude everywhere. Spread there population across the world and you hold a majority.
If it ever came to blows between the two, it would be a lose/lose situation. Regardless of whether China has a couple of divisions left standing, other country's would jump on the remaining carcasses of both and claim their share.
And unfortunately the thought of claiming what was yours 1000 years ago doesn't wash in today's world. Even though the Jews and Muslims would argue that to the death. Taiwan is NOT apart of China anymore, nor are they likely to be without something bad happening.
If that were the case, then damn it Brittany and Normandy should be apart of Britain.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
[
And unfortunately the thought of claiming what was yours 1000 years ago doesn't wash in today's world. Even though the Jews and Muslims would argue that to the death. Taiwan is NOT apart of China anymore, nor are they likely to be without something bad happening.
If that were the case, then darn it Brittany and Normandy should be apart of Britain.
By that standard, I have claim to most of modern Libya, although I'd need the loan of a few divisions to make it stick......
And unfortunately the thought of claiming what was yours 1000 years ago doesn't wash in today's world. Even though the Jews and Muslims would argue that to the death. Taiwan is NOT apart of China anymore, nor are they likely to be without something bad happening.
If that were the case, then darn it Brittany and Normandy should be apart of Britain.
By that standard, I have claim to most of modern Libya, although I'd need the loan of a few divisions to make it stick......
Similar threads
