China warns interlopers in South China Sea

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by moon, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. reedak

    reedak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    At least a moon has come out to shine the light of wisdom on the Wise Men of Gotham who, as a Chinese saying goes, are busy "discussing war on paper".
     
    moon and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe you are right that France is selling weapons to a NATO potential enemy, the problem is that none of this demonstrates any of that. In fact it demonstrates a complete lack of any judgement, in your comparison of Saddam's Iraq as a weapons market with that of China. The test is not the moral reprehensibility of the despotic regime, but the geopolitical alignment. When France AND the USA sold weapons to Saddam, his fascist regime was in alliance with the Western bloc in which France and the USA are partners. So evidence that France sold weapons to Iraq and the extrapolation that therefore they sold weapons to China is an appallingly intellectually lazy and inept argument. On that basis you may as well argue that the USA sold arms to China, as they sold them to Iraq as well.

    Secondly the examples you quote are redesigns or reverse engineered versions of French (and American) weapons. This is not an example of a "French" system and certainly not a sale of French arms. It is an example of a Chinese copy. A BYD car isn't a BMW just because it has nicked its logo. It's a Chinese car. I am no defender of a country where 6 million people vote Nazi and the President courts their votes, but this childish demonization of France as some sort of ally of China/Saddam/the Big Bad Wolf is nothing short of pathetic. Of course if you actually had some evidence and argument on which to base your conclusions I would be pleased to hear it, but as the silly kids in American colleges say, so far it's an "epic fail".

    Well maybe every American jet engine is a reverse engineering of what Sir Frank Whittle did. But I notice you have changed the argument from "not able to build jet engines" to "not able to build jet engines that are any good". One is a matter of fact, the second a matter of opinion, but at least you have stopped overstating the case now.

    I'm curious. I can quite believe that China exagerrates its military strength. There have also been occasions (Korea) when Chinese strength has been completely underestimated, although not on the technology side. The problem is that you don't dispel myths by inventing other ones (that France is a Chinese ally or enabler). You may be right, but your arguments offer very little support to your conclusions. What I can tell you is that however far China is behind, they are catching up fast. It took the Western world decades to progress from mass production of Henry Ford's "whatever colour you want as long as its black", to customized technology leadership. China is getting there fast and Chinese technology is getting better and better. In areas such as cyber warfare they are state of the art and a real threat to the West. Chinese companies like Haier and Huawei are approaching world class quality. China is very focused on innovation and quality as the bright minds who run the country know well that a cheap labour economy cannot sustain for ever. American complacency that China is a cheap labour economy and nothing else is misplaced.

    The central question, which Albert raised is not just the technological progress of China per se, but the perception, by its own leaders, of China's own position. There is confidence in the ultimate economic and military triumph of China in China and the questions are only about timing. Overconfidence can lead to overreach, and this is almost certainly the danger here. Chinese exceptionalism is much stronger even than American exceptionalism and has been intact for three thousand years.
     
  3. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I think your post is very good but what I don't understand is why, if Hong Kong manages to adopt One Person One Vote, a One Country Two Systems solution might not work in Taiwan. I appreciate that right now Hong Kong is not democratic enough to serve as a blueprint for Taiwan, but it has the rule of law, basic human rights and a representative democracy of sorts with universal suffrage (and therefore a democratic political culture). If Hong Kong were to develop into a democratic enclave, this could serve as a basis for a Taiwanese re-unification with the Mainland. The obstacle to this is the Taiwanese nationalists, as I understand it. But these are in a minority, are they not?
     
  4. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You might recall that China did not back down over Hong Kong, a former British colony, which is now back in Chinese hands.http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hong-kong-returned-to-china
     
  5. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are no 100 mile artillery pieces in anyone's inventory, just for info.
     
  6. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL, as if we are analogous to Britain. That is not an apples to apples comparison.
     
  7. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You've gotten completely away from the topic at hand. Why are you so obsessed with NATO and France? My original point was that the vast majority of advanced Chinese equipment is based off of other country's designs, or is outright purchased from them. I cited the Soviets and France because China has a lot of connections to them (mostly Russia/Soviets). You became indignant at the idea that French weapons could end up in Chinese hands. You didn't appear to understand that the world's largest arms exporters (France, Russia, U.S. Germany, U.K.) have weapons systems in dozens of countries throughout the world, sometimes even in "enemy" hands due to age or changing political situations. My point wasn't to somehow undermine France for selling weapons to Iraq or China(pre EU ban), it was to explain the nature of the arms trade. In essence I was saying that your notion that French weapons would never end up in Chinese hands because of their connection to NATO is wrong.

    France has sold weapons to China. This was mostly before 1990, but it's believed Europeans (France/U.K./Germany) still sell a few hundred million euros in military equipment to the Chinese each year. As I said before, this has nothing to do with France. I don't understand why you're so sensitive about this issue. My ENTIRE point is that China lacks the technology/industry to design and produce high end military technology so they reverse engineer or buy their stuff from other countries. This isn't a witch hunt trying to prove France sells weapons to China; It's me highlighting the fact that domestically produced/designed military equipment is substandard.

    http://hu1st.blogspot.com/2012/05/shenyang-ddg-115-chinese-destroyer-and.html

    Now you're just arguing semantics. If you want to get so petty and argue around the little details we'll be here all day long. Sudan could probably design and build a jet engine. This doesn't mean it will be of any quality. The fact remains that China cannot design and produce a modern Jet engine that can compete with Western/Russian engines. The clear evidence of is found in every fighter jet the Chinese actively use which were either directly purchased from Russia, reverse engineered from Russian/(other countries) technology, or uses Russian engines.

    American jet engines are designed from the ground up (as are British/French/Soviet). If you want to play that silly game with Sir Whittle, we could claim that every aircraft in existence is just "reverse engineered" from the Wright Brothers.
     
  8. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe He really does exist and likes what I am doing. In which case you will be the one in trouble.

    That is another way of saying "opinion".

    A judge without the power to punish can be safely ignored.

    They are not confessions so much as gloating.

    Anything not mainstream is fringe. Not all opinions or sources are equal. Some have more merit than others.

    Without actual evidence to the contrary, we can assume it is zero.

    Not Americans of my generation. We have no threats today comparable to the soviets.
     
  9. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    China has been making gains. However, its innovation is extremely limited by it's central government. Large institutions don't fuel innovation. Many experts are skeptical of China's ability to innovate with the government breathing down everyone's neck. The vast majority of China's so-called "technology boom" is from foreign firms bringing their own technology into the country and producing it there. Compared to the U.S./Europe there is very little technological innovation going on. They simply don't have the structure in place for that type of thing. Government planning and investment can only go so far. China is making tremendous strides, but it came from WAY behind the U.S./Europe. It's quite easy to look like the next titan of innovation and growth when you have 10%+ growth rates every year and a billion people. Much of this is because of their catching up. Chinese growth isn't exceptional because it's following a path that has already been blazed decades ago by the West. China will be a powerful and influential country because of its massive population. With 5 times the population it will inevitably surpass the U.S. in terms of raw GDP numbers. This doesn't mean it will have a more advanced, innovative, or efficient economy though. As it closes the gap with the West, its growth rate will decay. The last few inchs are always the hardest to close. If you take away its cheap labor, centralized government, and willingness to bend the rules, what does China have that gives it an advantage over the U.S./Europe who have been pushing the ceiling of economic efficiency for decades, rather than just following along a well cleared road.
     
  10. reedak

    reedak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your time will surely come to find out whether He likes what you are doing.

    Whether it is an opinion or not would make no difference to you because it is not your opinion.

    When you become US president next time, you can safely ignore all the judges.

    Whether you confess, gloat or sleep talk, the US misdeeds are made known publicly by you.

    If your president disagrees with you, he is also a fringe to you.

    Don't assume all vehicles will stop for you when you use a zebra crossing.

    On the contrary, you are facing more threats than before. That's how Osama caught America by surprise on September 11, 2001.
     
  11. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sensitive about anything. I just think that if you are going to set yourself up as the expert on the forum in Chinese military capabilities (which I was initially prepared to concede to you if you could convey any impression of credibility in your writing), you could write like an expert would, with precision, facts and focus and not this vague and imprecise drivel that you are shoveling out such as this post here. Even here you continue to argue that China and France are close. That's what the words, grammar and syntax say in the post above. The reality is that France is as close to China as the USA is, or perhaops even less so as they are less entwined economically with the manufacturing supply chains in the Chinese Coastal cities.

    You end up relying on generalized bilge such as "everyone's weapons get everywhere you know" which for one who was trying to make the point that American weapons are great and everyone else's suck, is actually really drifting off the point. Most people are pretty clear that US military technology is the best in the world. The question is "by how much". It is difficult to see how what you post adds any meaningful insight here, though try we do.

    You made an argument that Chinese weapons were far inferior because they were French and not American, but when pinned down it is clear that the reality is that Chinese weakness does not come from that but from the fact that its arms are poor copies of outdated technology, French and American. Your original implication was that French (and Russian) technology would trouble no-one of any significance, when in fact the latest French military technology would give China some meaningful military capability, especially when defending its own sovereign territory. China does not have the latest French military technology.

    Your point about semantics is right. Semantics refers to the meaning of words. Arguments of any merit use semantics which express a point clearly and precisely and not through vague hyperbole or allusions. The point is not whether it is a copy, but how good a copy a Chinese jet engine will be. Generally Britain's failure is marked by its failure to extract any advantage from inventing the things that America then copies (or should we say develops). America is the nation that has been uber successful in the way it has developed and proliferated other people's ideas (including the very idea of America itself which is, ironically, French, or at the very least British). The prize goes to those who finish first, not those who start best. China has of course been a copier and the quality hasn't always been great. Japan started like that after the war (WW2). But now China is changing. I know this. I know that Chinese capitalism is fast adapting towards being an innovator, but this will still not be innovation in originating ideas but in the quality and verve in how it develops existing ideas. China is copying America in how to copy, or how to develop existing ideas into national advantage. You might not see it yet from stateside.

    In China I see it. It has its problems - not least the lack of a democratic culture where individual contribution is valued in organizations. But if it can overcome these, it's only a matter of when, not if, China becomes the most powerful nation in the world. The problem with this is that China is still dominated by the totalitarian idea, as Orwell put it, that power is more important than law. As this strength develops and China's perception of its own power develops, borders, the wishes of populations, distances and international law will mean nothing, unless China itself is induced to develop "liberal democracy with Chinese characteristics". In an era where concepts of international law (a concept that arose out of the US post WW2 hegemony) are trashed by the USA itself, and the values of human rights are tarnished by the denial of human rights to America's accused enemies, the likelihood of a tyrannical China rising, intoxicated on its own sense of power, unchecked by notions of legality or justice, causing a lot of trouble, is strong. The timing is the only interesting question.

    I know that China is catching up fast, but I'm curious as to how far behind America China is. When pressed on the nonsense you write first time you make an effort to write something more nuanced (that's a generous way of putting it), but by the time we get this, the bigger picture has been lost. Your tendency in these posts to overstate and infuse your posts with xenophobic sideswipes (belittling Sudan - that was the sound of the bully laughing at the little guy) suggests that the substance of your posts, when we actually find it, cannot be relied on. They don't read like an attempt to carefully diagnose the military capabilities of China, but more like a posturing exceptionalism. To say that China couldn't design a jet engine and then to later to concede that a country with a Space program probably could design a jet engine but that such an engine wouldn't be any good, and then to say that the difference between these two positions is a "little detail", just eliminates any credibility whatsoever from what you post here.
     
  12. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This is the complacency that will sink the West. There is some truth in it, but this analysis is deeply flawed. Large organizations do innovate: large American organizations innovate the most. It is however a big challenge to develop orgnanizations like that in China because the "management cultures" that exist in large companies like Apple, GE, Microsoft etc. are products largely of the political cultures of open societies. This is what Chinese companies will find difficult to develop - there is simply no culture of individualism to tap into. But many Chinese companies are trying, nonetheless. This position that there is no innovation in Chinese companies is just bollocks. Chinese companies hire Western managers to teach them how to do this. You should never underestimate the collosal extent to which China will copy - right down to copying management techniques that spawn innovation. They will then give this a Chinese twist. Some of this innovation will come in a cultural context that Westerners will struggle to understand (through copying Toyota for example, which requires an understanding of Zen Bhuddism if you really want to fathom the teachings of Taichi Ohno). I can tell you that when I look at the Chinese legal system it is smart, logical and worked out by some very intelligent bureaucrats. What holds China back is the mediocrity of regional officials, not the poor quality of strategic thinking. This can change and some might argue will inevitably change as an emerging middle class demand political rights.

    China is merely having its Industrial Revolution now. It bends the rules on free trade no more than the USA did when its economy was growing (when it was ultra protectionist in contrast to the global dominant power Britain's free trade approach). Free Trade always favours developed economies who have developed dominant trading positions and advantage and as China develops it will find it in its self interest to free float its currency etc.. Similarly, it has a long way to go on cheap labour, but already there are markets (textiles) where China is no longer "low cost" and where just ten years since they won business through a cheap labour model, Chinese businesses are having to pursue quality and innovation and labour saving investment to counter their rising labour costs. China is going through a Chicago period (corruption), or a time in Britain where crude unrefined enterepreneurialism brutally exploited a labour force which it crammed into city slums. It's coming out of that phase as well.

    But in many ways it is also emerging, as you state because they are treading a well worn path. You argue that as if it weakens their progress. In fact it is China's greatest enabler. They are having an industrial revolution where consumerism, industrial strategies of customer intimacy, workers rights, political rights and the internet have already been invented. The faster China learns to copy these, the faster it will eclipse the rest of us. To us expats out here it is the Industrial Revolution on speed: what took decades or even centuries in the West to develop, is now happening in years. The big shortfall is on the political rights front, but I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see some reforms emerging there in the next ten years.

    You ask what advantages it has. Ultimately it has none in the very long run. In the very long run we are all the same. Catching up is all it has to do. But a country with 1.3 billion people does not need to have equal GDP per head before it becomes economically dominant. If it got to 50% of the USA's GDP per head it would be a seriously dominant nation. And an economically dominant China will soon catch up militarily.

    The real question is how to use the soft power of Western democracies to ensure that the world's next "most powerful nation" will be one that respects the universal rights of man and the rule of law. Trying to work out when we run out of time to do that is an interesting second question.
     
  13. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed! The evil USA, no the USA the most evil government in the history of the world according to those that bash the world out of ignorance and anger. I would guess that the Chinese are more concerned with their North Korean buddies than the USA types or our allies. When I read posts by the Usual Suspects that claim the USA uses force to obtain resources I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't really take resources and reparations for saving countries like Kuwait and Egypt. Trump thinks we should make em' pay. The reason we do not seize booty is that we are not in the business of war to take over an country to rob it of its resources. No that's for countries like the old Babylon i.e. Iraq who invaded the oil rich Kuwait for her oil. Anyway if the USA were really evil we could have ruled the world at least two times in the past. Personally I am all for not war and expansionism but rather running and hiding from the parasitic nations of the world and daring them to invade. Then when they called up and pleaded for help from the big bad Iraqs of the world* I would tell them to do as my drill instructor suggest to the screw ups in our platoon while flipping them the bird ...."perch and rotate".

    * Without the USA in the world to keep the peace or at least to prevent another world war I would bet any amount that opportunist dictators would pop up everywhere increasing in number and brutality.

    reva
     
  14. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You really belive that US foreign policy is not dictated by a strategy of self-interest?

    Of course it is. The USA benefits from trading with and exploiting the resources of those countries which it seeks to "liberate". This makes war less necessary.

    There's nothing wrong with enlightened self interest. If you can get rid of a scumbag like Saddam and make a few bucks for yourself and the people that Saddam screwed, then why not? The problem is not American motivation but American effectiveness.

    American effectiveness is derailed by American excess, at Gitmo, Abu Gharaib and with careless "collateral damage". If the USA demanded to be paid for its excesses as well you would soon find the USA isolated.

    If it wasn't for the fact that the vast majority of Americans aren't horrific rightwing scumbags I would actually wish isolationism on the morons on the Right whonsay "bring it on" when isolationism is mentioned. A world without the dollar as the reserve currency, without the US financial system and US capital, without US innovation, would indeed damage the world. But it would damage the USA far more and of course the world would get over it quicker. I suppose if you're holed up in the hills of Montana it don't matter much.
     
  15. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You make some very good points. I would also like to say that it's in China's best interest to make sure the US dollar is healthy and that our economic health in general is good! We are the largest client for it's consumer goods by far. It seems to me that by now nations would learn that conquering a nation with armed conflict ie war is a primitive and a no win situation when waged on a national scale. The real war, the war that does not fade into memory when the soldiers go home is the cultural and economic war.

    When in the height of the cold war we could turn on CNN and see the youths of Communist Russia or China wearing levis and drink Coke t shirts that was nearly as profound to me as seeing the American flag flying over the Kremlin. When the dollar is the dominent currency and the one all nations want to put in the bank that too is a type of security that on par with having a standing army in reserve. Of course I have over simplified it but in reality the cultural war is very, very important. Why does the Taliban and such Muslim terrorist groups REALLY fear the west? There are several reasons but IMO the primary reason is that they fear their people being tempted into the western way of life and losing them completely. Its all about losing control over them. What do they have if Islamic threats of beheading for leaving Islam are being numbed by three of four double martinis or shots and dreams of a white picket fence and the American dream? Nothing. And they know it.

    reva
     
    Heroclitus and (deleted member) like this.
  16. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Excellent post Rev. If only the USA could get back to this soft power it would sweep China like wildfire. Chinese people have a love/hate attitude towards America. Go for the love, not the hate. That's always the easiest way.
     
  17. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well at least we agree on something eh? Remember what Jesus said? ; 'Greed is the root of all evil' (he said the love of money but its the same thing). If not for greed communism/socialism would work and be the most fair system on earth. However the leaders and bureaucrats always end up skimming the creme off the top and the poor peasants try to hold back something for themselves resulting in the system failing. However greed drives capitalism so it will work for awhile. As for prepping its the thing to do. There are too many have not's and far too many greedy haves. Its my sad assessment that its nearly if not truly too late to fix the things that would save us, so the best I can hope for is for me and my friends ...oh and Bogie (my elderly basset hound) to ride out the coming storm, being as invisible and as benign as possible!

    reva


    [​IMG]
     
  18. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I never "set myself up" as an expert on Chinese military capabilities. I can't be held responsible for your incorrect assessment of my knowledge base. I've written in broad terms because it's a very broad topic. I could spend hours researching every aircraft/weapon in the Chinese inventory and provide a source for each Soviet/Foreign component, or I could give you a few examples and let you decide on your own. The information is out there if you wish to get a broader picture. You are still somehow caught up on France. I never said anything about France and China having a close relationship. I said that China buys a lot of foreign weapons and reverse engineers others. I used France as an example off the top of my head and provided a few examples. You then declared it was impossible for a NATO country to provide any weapons technology to China....I countered by saying that French (and American/British/Dutch etc.) weapons are in the hands of all types of people around the world. I agree that the French are less involved with the Chinese than the Americans are....but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    If you know anything about the international arms industry you know that weapons get scattered to the winds. The U.S. and Russia provide billions and billions of dollars of weapons to various countries every year. Changing political situations, war, etc. often means that weapons provided in SUPPORT of the host country in the 80s are now used against the host country. When did I say that every weapon NOT American sucked? I said that most indigenous Chinese weapons "sucked" when compared to Western weapons. The Chinese themselves understand this and go out of their way to get foreign weapons or reverse engineer them. China has certainly improved its defense industry in the past few decades but it still lags behind Russian, U.S., French, U.K. etc. designs, particularly when it comes to ships and aircraft.

    My argument was never that Chinese weapons sucked because they were French. My argument was that Chinese weapons sucked because they were rip offs of outdated technology from other countries. The French have some of the best equipment out there. Other than your clear misunderstanding of my previous posts, this paragraphs pretty much sums up my point exactly. Nowhere did I indicate that cutting-edge Russian/French military technology was subpar.


    I spoke in broad terms on an internet forum. You took those words and have attempted to break them down as though they were an official legal explanations. You also took them and interpreted them in a manner quite differently that I intended. You appear to have used my words as an opportunity to lash out at some positions that I myself never supported. I tried to clarify for you what my meaning was, but you've gone on to argue with me about the meaning of my own words....thus the semantics.


    China will almost certainly become the world's largest economy. This doesn't translate to it being the most powerful nation on earth though. On the day that the Chinese economy usurps the American one (in gross terms) it will still lag far behind Europe/U.S. in terms of political, cultural, and military world influence. I think in the future the U.S./China/Europe will come to balance each other. The U.S. won't be the world's undisputed Superpower in 2030+ as it is today. Provided China cleans up its political system, I don't see much wrong with this.

    I know that China is catching up fast, but I'm curious as to how far behind America China is. When pressed on the nonsense you write first time you make an effort to write something more nuanced (that's a generous way of putting it), but by the time we get this, the bigger picture has been lost. Your tendency in these posts to overstate and infuse your posts with xenophobic sideswipes (belittling Sudan - that was the sound of the bully laughing at the little guy) suggests that the substance of your posts, when we actually find it, cannot be relied on. They don't read like an attempt to carefully diagnose the military capabilities of China, but more like a posturing exceptionalism. To say that China couldn't design a jet engine and then to later to concede that a country with a Space program probably could design a jet engine but that such an engine wouldn't be any good, and then to say that the difference between these two positions is a "little detail", just eliminates any credibility whatsoever from what you post here.[/QUOTE]

    Sudan is a tiny country with almost no advanced industry. I picked them at random to demonstrate a point. I can't believe you'd actually be this sensitive. Don't get offended when I call an Apple an Apple. That's what I despise most about political correctness.

    The point remains that China imports all of its jet engine technology for military aircraft. You can't dance around this basic fact. Clearly if China had the technology and industry capable of producing and designing a cutting edge jet engine, it would have done so long ago. Space isn't some magical all encompassing barometer for military technology. Russia and the U.S. have been launching satellites in space for more than half a century. In the 50s, no one could have dreamed of the engine that's fielded in the F-22 Raptor or modern Russian aircraft.
     
  19. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The difference between HK and Taiwan is that Taiwan is also or once the official representative of China. For Taiwan to accept a HK style One country Two system would mean that the ROC of Taiwan would have to declare full surrender and defeat to the PROC of the CCP in which up to this date they are still officially at civil war with each other.

    The KMT have prove that their system works, while the CCP have proven that their system does not that is why since the modernization of mainland China that started in the late 1970s the CCP have basically adapted the KMT model 'socialism-capitalism" but most of all the preservation and promotion of Chinese culture. The difference between the CCP and KMT is that the KMT have embrace democracy and multi party system while the CCP have not.

    Will the KMT accept surrender to the CCP?
    Or will the CCP and KMT cooperate and become the official Two Parties of One China?

    No doubt that the KMT nationalist will not accept surrender to the CCP.
    The Taiwanese nationalist will not as well, they want independence.
    The CCP will not accept surrender to the KMT or independence to Taiwan.

    The only reason HK and Macua were turn over to Mainland China was because mainland China is recognize as the official representative of China and since the lease of those Islands were made with China which was at that time the Qing dynasty. If, the ROC of Taiwan was still recognize as the official China, HK and Macua would have been hand over to them. The timing of Nixon's visit to mainland and the switching of recognition from ROC to PROC by the UN was timely, coincidental or pre plan. Taiwan or the ROC was sold out.
     
  20. Space_Drift

    Space_Drift New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Every time I hear the word "interlopers" it reminds me of Malichai from Children of the Corn. Getting back on topic, there have been several articles about countries like Vietnam and the Philippines having disagreements about territorial boundaries w/China. One thing is certain, none of those countries are BRIC nations.
     
  21. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    China can easily exert herself by forcing out the rest of the countries from those islands, none of those countries will survive a naval battle against China nor can they afford it nor will they extend the war over to China. What's keeping China from doing such a thing is blow back, China maybe militarily superior than all the rest of the SEA countries but she is not invincible from internal revolution. China's greatest enemy and threat is not the USA, or anything external but from within.
     
  22. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    But I hear many nationalist voices in China (straight to my face) who take the legalist approach that China should take these islands, not because it is right or justified, but because it can. Actually the argument is that not to do something that you can do is an unnecessary exercise in self humiliation. The USA is seen as a nation that takes power, resources and influence where it can, by force. For China not to do this shows China's weakness. This is a strong indirect result of the USA trashing democratic values and the Rights of Man in the "war on terror": democracy is seen as hypocrisy. Fair trials and protection from torture are lies, covering up the exercise of raw power for self interest. China should similarly exercise raw power for self interest, goes the ugly, nationalist argument on the street.

    There is massive and ugly nationalism in China, based on feudal values and communist corruption, which urges aggressive foreign policy. The danger is that to shore up an internal power position, elements of the CCCP who are theatened by anti-graft, pre-political reform reformers, will exploit such nationalism and enable such aggressive action just to defend their own position. As in all countries history, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and whipping up xenophobia (Japan is usually a convenient whipping boy to divert attention away from government incompetence) and glorifying the exploits of the military is a great way for an unpopular politician to get back in shape.
     
  23. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Hong Kong was handed over to the PRC because Britain knew it could not win a war with the PRC. The PRC could have won just by cutting off water and electricity. And Britain had treaty obligations, but it would not have fulfilled these against the wishes of the Hong Kong population (which the handover was) to a government in Taipei. It was nothing to do with Nixon. The UK recognized the PRC in 1950. UK and US foreign policy towards China has been quite different and often antagonistic (post WW2 the US wanted HK handed over to China immediately).

    All that surrender stuff is nonsense to people who want one China. It's history and things change. A compromise solution would enable one country two systems. The argument against that right now is that Taiwan's democracy is much stronger than Hong Kong's and that Taiwan would not want to go backwards. As Hong Kong's democracy evolves, this objection will weaken. The only obstacle then becomes the nationalists/separatists, which as I understand form a large minority in Taiwan.

    I think most people in PRC want a peaceful re-union and are prepared to wait until this happens more naturally with political systems converging as I have described. My question is on how Taiwanese people see it. Given the current President is seen as very pro-Beijing I can only assume that there is a strong constituency in Taiwan that are looking for a gradual coming together as well.
     
  24. Paris

    Paris Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am seeing a lot of Chinese tourists nowadays. We communicate in English. They are nice, young, educated, and they shop a lot: any day is boxing day:)
     
  25. s002wjh

    s002wjh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,210
    Likes Received:
    641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    actually most taiwanese prefer status quo. not fully independence. but yeah, taiwan don't want to become part of china because. 1. CCP is not democratic, 2. living condition in china etc is still consider a developing world.
     

Share This Page