Aircraft carrier symbol of China's naval ambitions
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
BartSimpson @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:28 pm
CommanderSock CommanderSock:
War is bad for business.
And the Chinese don't understand business.
They started the current worldwide depression in the summer of 2008. See, the US was pressuring them to let their currency float and they responded by "punishing" the USA.
What'd they do? China dumped 10% of their US Treasury T-Bills in one day in order to smack the US markets.
The thing they realized too late once the dominoes started falling is that it was China that got hit the hardest by this action.
First, their stupid move devalued the 90% of their T-Bills that no one wants to buy any more.
Second, their move hurt the markets in the US that bought Chinese goods and now there's millions of Chinese out of work.
Given that they've proven they can do rash things that are eminently self-defeating, I absolutely will not rule out China having a 'Middle Kingdom' tantrum and starting a world war because ignorant foreigners won't kowtow to the inherent superiority of the modern Mandarins.
CommanderSock @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:28 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
CommanderSock CommanderSock:
can China even fight a war outside its borders?
In 1853 Japan was essentially an Iron Age civilization. Fifty years later their navy defeated the Russians. Forty years after that they'd bloodied the nose of the USA and all but drove the Royal Navy out of the Pacific.
China may not be able to fight a war beyond their borders for now, but the fact of the matter is that they are clearly laying the foundations for a military that can project power worldwide. Given that their military leadership has repeatedly announced their aggressive intentions both towards their neighbors and towards others then any new capability of the Chinese needs to be viewed critically.
In the past decade various Chinese military leaders have said things like:
* China should have enclaves around the world just like how foreign powers used to have Hong Kong, Macao, and etc. in China. Vancouver is on that list of cities coveted by China for such an enclave.
* The Phillipines historically belonged to China and should belong to China again. (Despite the fact that China never had these islands before).
* China should annex Siberia from Russia and by force if needed.
* China should annex Burma/Myanmar in order to secure ports on the Indian Ocean.
* China's strategic interests in Singapore demand Chinese control of Singapore.
* The Spratly Islands and their oil riches should be seized by China.
* China should invade Japan if Japan does not allow the Chinese Navy to transit Japanese waters at will.
Granted, this is their military making these statements. The thing is, anymore there's a lot of concern that the Chinese military is not responding to civilian control and if China destabilizes it is expected that the Chinese military will take control from the civilian Communist government.
At which point things will get hairy.
China is massive, corrupt, and has a graying population.
And the Chinese regimes (dynasties) are prone to ugly and messy collapses.
The Japanese are organized and are on the level with Germany and Britain when it comes to national unity.
BartSimpson @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:30 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656:
Interesting... I didn't know we had several trillion dollars worth of American weaponry.
I'm curious, since you don't personally own the equipment at your local fire house is it likewise incomprehensible to you that such equipment can be used to protect you?
andyt @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:31 pm
Everybody's got their problems, including the Japanese. Hard to know which way things will go, except it seems the US is bent on cutting it's own throat.
saturn_656 @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:44 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
saturn_656 saturn_656:
Interesting... I didn't know we had several trillion dollars worth of American weaponry.
I'm curious, since you don't personally own the equipment at your local fire house is it likewise incomprehensible to you that such equipment can be used to protect you?
Not quite the same situation. That fire equipment is paid for with taxpayer dollars and belongs to municipality in which I live.
My municipality, my province, my country... none of the aforementioned has the trillions of dollars worth of weaponry you're talking about.
martin14 @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:44 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656:
In the PRC's short history it has fought with South Korea (and therefore the UN), Vietnam, Soviet Union, India, outright conquered Tibet, and is a constant threat to the Republic of China on Taiwan.
If you want to buy that "peaceful rise" nonsense the PRC is selling, feel free. The countries on or near its borders know better.
If you want to buy that "peaceful rise" nonsense the PRC is selling, feel free. The countries on or near its borders know better.
martin14 @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:46 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
saturn_656 saturn_656:
Interesting... I didn't know we had several trillion dollars worth of American weaponry.
I'm curious, since you don't personally own the equipment at your local fire house is it likewise incomprehensible to you that such equipment can be used to protect you?
Not quite the same situation. That fire equipment is paid for with taxpayer dollars and belongs to municipality in which I live.
My municipality, my province, my country... none of the aforementioned has the trillions of dollars worth of weaponry you're talking about.
Dude, come on, we all know Canada relies heavily on the US for defense.
The Chinese won't come play in Canada for the same reason they won't play with Taiwan.....
The USA won't allow it ( for now )
saturn_656 @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:50 pm
martin14 martin14:
Dude, come on, we all know Canada relies heavily on the US for defense.
The Chinese won't come play in Canada for the same reason they won't play with Taiwan.....
The USA won't allow it ( for now )
The Chinese won't come play in Canada for the same reason they won't play with Taiwan.....
The USA won't allow it ( for now )
Even if the US threw up its hands and told China they could walk on in if they wanted to, the Chinese (at present) lack the necessary assets to project power into Canada.
BartSimpson @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:00 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656:
My municipality, my province, my country... none of the aforementioned has the trillions of dollars worth of weaponry you're talking about.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh?
I *never* said that Canada owned such equipment. I said that Canada was protected by it. And it is. Were China to attack Canada there's a treaty that says the US will protect Canada with everything at our disposal. In short, our military is your military and, by grace of that same treaty, yours is also ours if a rainy day comes along.
saturn_656 @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:14 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
saturn_656 saturn_656:
My municipality, my province, my country... none of the aforementioned has the trillions of dollars worth of weaponry you're talking about.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh?
I *never* said that Canada owned such equipment. I said that Canada was protected by it. And it is. Were China to attack Canada there's a treaty that says the US will protect Canada with everything at our disposal. In short, our military is your military and, by grace of that same treaty, yours is also ours if a rainy day comes along.
I knew exactly what you were saying.
My belief is that any attempt by China (at present) to project power into Canada would fail because they lack the assets to successfully conduct such an operation even against the much smaller Canadian Forces. Not considering the United States at all.
Sure they have a million man army, but how do they get them to our Pacific coast? How do they provide air cover? How do they re-supply their expeditionary force?
They aren't quite the fearsome boogeyman the Soviet Union was. Not yet anyway.
CommanderSock @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:21 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
saturn_656 saturn_656:
My municipality, my province, my country... none of the aforementioned has the trillions of dollars worth of weaponry you're talking about.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh?
I *never* said that Canada owned such equipment. I said that Canada was protected by it. And it is. Were China to attack Canada there's a treaty that says the US will protect Canada with everything at our disposal. In short, our military is your military and, by grace of that same treaty, yours is also ours if a rainy day comes along.
I knew exactly what you were saying.
My belief is that any attempt by China (at present) to project power into Canada would fail because they lack the assets to successfully conduct such an operation even against the much smaller Canadian Forces. Not considering the United States at all.
Sure they have a million man army, but how do they get them to our Pacific coast? How do they provide air cover? How do they re-supply their expeditionary force?
They aren't quite the fearsome boogeyman the Soviet Union was. Not yet anyway.
And quite honestly the USSR wasn't all it was trumped up to be either. I doubt without the nukes they would be anything other than "another" powerful European country.
bootlegga @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:29 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Thanos Thanos:
There'll still be those overly-influential voices though that regard the Chinese acquiring anything more powerful than a slingshot as a virtual act of war.
The Chinese are not going to use their carrier force for altruistic reasons. It's easy for you to sit back in Canada protected by several trillion dollars worth of American weaponry and dismiss China as a threat.
For people to insist that the same US that planned for almost 50 years on waging a full-blown nuclear conflict directly over Canada with the Soviets, is in any way interested in what happens to Canadians is specious at best. As far as most Americans are concerned, we are consumers of their products and services more than anything else (and a relatively small market at that).
We're far more protected by several thousand kms of ocean (Pacific and Atlantic) than we are by the US.
bootlegga @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:35 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I *never* said that Canada owned such equipment. I said that Canada was protected by it. And it is. Were China to attack Canada there's a treaty that says the US will protect Canada with everything at our disposal. In short, our military is your military and, by grace of that same treaty, yours is also ours if a rainy day comes along.
What does that prove? Canada would defend the US with everything at its disposal too if the situations were reversed. That's because neither nation wants to live next door to a dictatorship and because of our treaty obligations.
National self-interest and benevolence are not the same thing.
saturn_656 saturn_656:
I knew exactly what you were saying.
My belief is that any attempt by China (at present) to project power into Canada would fail because they lack the assets to successfully conduct such an operation even against the much smaller Canadian Forces. Not considering the United States at all.
Sure they have a million man army, but how do they get them to our Pacific coast? How do they provide air cover? How do they re-supply their expeditionary force?
They aren't quite the fearsome boogeyman the Soviet Union was. Not yet anyway.
Canadian_Mind @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:04 pm
Global warming kills us all. 
saturn_656 @ Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:33 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
Global warming kills us all.
Might not be all bad for us.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world ... 3081e9aa3a
$1:
But a group of global-warming experts, made up mainly of university economists and anthropologists, is pushing the notion that global warming might not be an unmitigated disaster, especially for certain northerly regions, such as Canada, Russia and Scandinavia.
Leading the charge is Robert Mendelsohn, an economics professor at Yale University, who says the benefits of global warming for Canada - from a longer growing season to the opening up of shipping through the Northwest Passage - will outweigh the negative effects.
"You’re lucky because you’re a northern-latitude country, Mendelsohn says. "If you add it all up, it’s a good thing for Canada."
Leading the charge is Robert Mendelsohn, an economics professor at Yale University, who says the benefits of global warming for Canada - from a longer growing season to the opening up of shipping through the Northwest Passage - will outweigh the negative effects.
"You’re lucky because you’re a northern-latitude country, Mendelsohn says. "If you add it all up, it’s a good thing for Canada."
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next