While you maybe right your examples ring hollow to me. I don’t recall China saying anything more threaten about nuclear weapons than any other nuclear state facing a strong conventional threat, to include the US during the Cold War. Also while China has made threats directed towards Taiwan there has never been a formal alliance between the US and Taiwan, to the best of my recollection from Nixon until the current administration the US was always deliberately ambiguous on the situation.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4...00e2511c8.html
About alliance:The US has stated that they would defend Taiwan. Whether or not you want to call it an alliance or not does not matter for the scenario.Originally Posted by Financial Times
Martin
Also recommend reading Unrestricted Warfare.
Take care,
Martin
Unrestricted Warfare...
Via Terrorism.com - Unrestricted Warfare. By Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999 - translated by FBIS).
[FBIS Editor's Note: The following selections are taken from "Unrestricted Warfare," a book published in China in February 1999 which proposes tactics for developing countries, in particular China, to compensate for their military inferiority vis-à-vis the United States during a high-tech war. The selections include the table of contents, preface, afterword, and biographical information about the authors printed on the cover.
The book was written by two PLA senior colonels from the younger generation of Chinese military officers and was published by the PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House in Beijing, suggesting that its release was endorsed by at least some elements of the PLA leadership. This impression was reinforced by an interview with Qiao and laudatory review of the book carried by the party youth league's official daily Zhongguo Qingnian Bao on 28 June.
Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict. Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed.
In the Zhongguo Qingnian Bao interview, Qiao was quoted as stating that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." Elaborating on this idea, he asserted that strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because "strong countries make the rules while rising ones break them and exploit loopholes . . .The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it." (see FBIS translation of the interview, OW2807114599)
[End FBIS Editor's Note]
Last edited by SWJED; 02-12-2006 at 11:28 PM.
I don’t know; I mean I see your point but to call a threat to Taiwan a threat to the US without a treaty seems a stretch, but you are certainly right in suggesting that war with Taiwan would most like involve the US. Still with such a loose standard could you not say that US talk about defending Taiwan could be seen as a threat to China, as they consider Taiwan to be a part of China?
Yes, that might be their perspective.
The USA defines her own moral and interests, not China. If the US believes it to be just, then you/we should stick the course. Of course one has to take into account consequences, etc, of saying that, but you get the point.
Martin
Last edited by Martin; 02-13-2006 at 01:35 AM.
Well since we are evaluating their threats I think their perspective is the most relevant. And if it is their perspective that they are not being any more threatening than we are maybe their not really threatening us . . . Just a thought.
If both parties are threatening each other, that is escalation, not de-escalation.
If from their perspective they feel threatened or just do not like other people voicing their opinion and position in regards to, e.g. (there are other examples), Taiwan, that does not mean that their responses are less effectual. On the contrary, if they can make a case for their people I would say it is more threatening rather than less.
With that said, I am positive about China within the next 50 years, if handled correctly. Though I wouldn't support either containment nor all-out friendliness.
IMHO,
Martin
SSI, 2 Apr 07: Chinese Perceptions of Traditional and Nontraditional Security Threats
In order to begin to understand the motivations and decisions of China’s leadership, and in order to behave in a manner such that we can influence them, we must try to understand the world as China does. This research is an attempt to do so by examining the writings and opinions of China’s scholars, journalists, and leaders—its influential elite. It will show that China has a comprehensive concept of national security that includes not only defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity, but continuing its economic and social development and maintaining its international stature....
To Quote Spock:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. China has the mind-set and wherewithal to sustain that axiom. They shoot protestors, they don't litigate with them. Recently in an outlying provence, there was some islamic unrest/agitation/suspected AQ activities. They went in and shot a whole slug fo them - end of discussion, end of story. I see no reason why China won't be the sole super power on the planet in about 40 years. They aren't burdened with the accouterments of Democracy for one thing. No flood of illegal immigrants to undermine employment and suck up benefits, no animal rights groups lobbying, no gay rights, no major, self-sustaining entitlement programs, no ACLU and NAACP, no NCAA, no FDA staffed by self-serving doctors, no separation of traditional and modern healing, no pro and anti gun groups, no drug cartels that hype disease for profit, no EPA and HIPPA regulations, no advocates for the mentally handicapped to breed freely, no civilian review boards for the police, no unisex bathrooms, no pet adoptions or pet psychologists and pet day cares and pet grooming industry, no affirmative action and no bra burning, no threats to cut funding for an authorized war simply for reasons of political gain/popularity, no halal and kosher food for their imprisoned miscreants, no costly tax-paid court appeals for convicted criminals, no public outrage and hearings over putting a pair of women's panties on the head of a detainee. They even make the families pay for the cost of the bullet to execute violent offenders. Why wouldn't such a practical people have secret tunnels and lots of nukes, be in outer space , have a dam with 9xs the output of Hoover dam and be implementing a massive road expansion project equal to our interstate system?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks