China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)

[Steve the Planner]

Unlike USSR in 1980, we could start any arms race we want with China, and they just wouldn't care.

As others have said, their strengths, weaknesses and interests are domestic.

[blueblood]

I can't really say anything about the strength of China's economy but they are definitely burning too much money in the extravagant infrastructure. Creating ghost cities, multi billion dollars dams and bridges. I know they lots of cash to spend but this much, I don't think so.

In near future China might outspend US in the arms race, plus PPP factor is also involved. The only sensible course of action I can see for US is to pass the baton of global sheriff to someone else and start doing what it does best, innovation.

[Ken White]

As for the victory of China during Korean War. You might not agree with me but the fact is Americans get involved in a war but they find it difficult to sustain it. Despite of all the gung ho attitude of US citizens and its military, there were itching to get out of Astan merely 3 or 4 years after it started.

We have a 'rule' of thirds and three. The thirds are 1/3 of Americans will agree with any given war; 1/3 will disagree with that war and the remaining 1/3 will support it if its going well and will not if it's going poorly -- all will be pretty quiet for about three years; after that they want to see progress or quit. We're an impatient and 'now' oriented crowd.

There were one or two exceptions to that. Our Revolution and Civil War, our only existential wars to date (and in many senses, the Revolution does not count...). Such an exception is likely to be true in the future if another existential war presents itself.

That 'supporting' 1/3 BTW will depend on which which political party started the war; those adhering to that party will support the war, those liking the other party will not. For the non-political, wavering or middle third, the issue is not the number of casualties (we're fairly bloodthirsty and most, not all, Americans do not fret over the casualties, they know they are a part of warfare) but performance. That middle third will continue to support as long as they think progress is being made.

All our wars are very much enmeshed with US domestic politics. Plus, as I wrote, we are not a patient people. Never have been -- the rule of thirds and three is informal and some say erroneous but history shows that except for the two existential wars, it has been pretty much true for all our wars s for over 200 years to include World Wars I and II (in neither of which was our existence threatened...). I do not see that changing in the near future.

Korea was just another example. Europeans lost more troops in many single battles during WW2 than the combined US casualties since 1776.

True. Also irrelevant and not much for those Europeans to brag about.

Casualty counts are notoriously inaccurate and IMO misleading, however, if you're into casualty counts, for those prior wars -- and now -- you might want to look at numbers of US casualties versus opponents military casualty totals by conflict or engagement. The relative counts are far more important and telling than the raw numbers...

[blueblood]

Images mean little -- and the US has never worried overmuch about theirs (regardless of the occasional sniveling in our rather pathetic news media who must sell something)...
Economic cycles are unpredictable and can change abruptly -- the sines cross in interesting patterns.

From what I've seen, US is the one of the few countries which was and is very much concerned for it's image. China definitely tops that list.

Yes, economic cycles and growth can change abruptly but not for an economy as massive as China. Their economy might seem capitalist overtly but it is still very much a state controlled economy. So don't pin your hopes on the crashing of China's economy.

[blueblood]

We have a 'rule' of thirds and three. The thirds are 1/3 of Americans will agree with any given war; 1/3 will disagree with that war and the remaining 1/3 will support it if its going well and will not if it's going poorly -- all will be pretty quiet for about three years; after that they want to see progress or quit. We're an impatient and 'now' oriented crowd.

There were one or two exceptions to that. Our Revolution and Civil War, our only existential wars to date (and in many senses, the Revolution does not count...). Such an exception is likely to be true in the future if another existential war presents itself.

That 'supporting' 1/3 BTW will depend on which which political party started the war; those adhering to that party will support the war, those liking the other party will not. For the non-political, wavering or middle third, the issue is not the number of casualties (we're fairly bloodthirsty and most, not all, Americans do not fret over the casualties, they know they are a part of warfare) but performance. That middle third will continue to support as long as they think progress is being made.

All our wars are very much enmeshed with US domestic politics. Plus, as I wrote, we are not a patient people. Never have been -- the rule of thirds and three is informal and some say erroneous but history shows that except for the two existential wars, it has been pretty much true for all our wars s for over 200 years to include World Wars I and II (in neither of which was our existence threatened...). I do not see that changing in the near future.True. Also irrelevant and not much for those Europeans to brag about.

Casualty counts are notoriously inaccurate and IMO misleading, however, if you're into casualty counts, for those prior wars -- and now -- you might want to look at numbers of US casualties versus opponents military casualty totals by conflict or engagement. The relative counts are far more important and telling than the raw numbers...

True US never faced existential threat and most likely will not meet any in near future. I always found American politicians as fairly sophisticated and indifferent to dirty politics but then again, I live in India and we elect megalomaniacs and people who never graduated high school. My point is American citizens are completely unaware of the kind of misery real wars bring and even then they find hard to fight a war which cannot be even termed as war. I can completely understand that Europeans or Asians don't like to be involved in wars but why Americans? Casualty count in Astan is half the civilians lost in 9/11. The spirit to avenge them died an early death.

Nope casualties of your enemies never portray a good picture when your enemy is a third world nation and is using the frontline equipment that were retired by other nations decades earlier. I was never a fan of American style of warfare but let's not go there.

[Dayuhan]

So don't pin your hopes on the crashing of China's economy.

The crashing of China's economy would be something to fear, not something to hope for.

[blueblood]

The crashing of China's economy would be something to fear, not something to hope for.

Not sure why but I wasn't the one who is dreaming.

[Ken White]

From what I've seen, US is the one of the few countries which was and is very much concerned for it's image. China definitely tops that list.

If that's based on US media and 'culture' as exported, that is totally understandable if erroneous. If it's based on what diplomats and politicians says, it is only slightly less so. If it is based on some experience with Americans as individuals, I'd say it was surprising...

Yes, economic cycles and growth can change abruptly but not for an economy as massive as China. Their economy might seem capitalist overtly but it is still very much a state controlled economy. So don't pin your hopes on the crashing of China's economy.

I'm not pinning my hopes on anything -- like Dayuhan, I'd strongly prefer to not see China crash and I also would like to see them get all the oil they want. I merely made an observation.

My point is American citizens are completely unaware of the kind of misery real wars bring and even then they find hard to fight a war which cannot be even termed as war. I can completely understand that Europeans or Asians don't like to be involved in wars but why Americans?

American may be unaware in the sense of most not having experienced warfare directly -- but that doesn't mean they're stupid; the penalties of war are fairly easy to discern. Add to that the fact that we are selfish, introspective and object to being disturbed and war is unliked and unwanted by most.

Casualty count in Astan is half the civilians lost in 9/11. The spirit to avenge them died an early death.

For most Americans there was never a "spirit to avenge them" -- there was a sense that some punishment for disturbing us needed to be dispensed. We did that and most Americans approved. Then G. W. Bush got an attack of conscience and decided to stay a while; most Americans did not approve -- they asked why?

Nope casualties of your enemies never portray a good picture when your enemy is a third world nation and is using the frontline equipment that were retired by other nations decades earlier. I was never a fan of American style of warfare but let's not go there.

Why not go there? That's why this board exists; your opinion is valuable. We're far from perfect, just like everyone else...

Not just third world. I was referring primarily to World War II --all the post 1945 wars were too distributed and too inconclusive too mean much insofar as casualty comparisons go.

Been my experience that old kit can do just as much damage as the newest stuff. An old SMLE in Afghanistan will reach out and touch people a lot further than the newest 5.56 M4 mods; the PKM is still probably the best all round MG out there. As the Actress said to the Bishop, it's not what you have but how you use it...

[Dayuhan]

Yes, economic cycles and growth can change abruptly but not for an economy as massive as China. Their economy might seem capitalist overtly but it is still very much a state controlled economy. So don't pin your hopes on the crashing of China's economy.

Anyone who thinks massive state-dominated economies can't crash is certainly dreaming.

I don't think it takes a whole lot of thought to see why a serious economic disruption in China would not be a good thing at all for the region, the US, or anyone else. Just got to get past the knee-jerk assumption that whatever is bad for China is good for everyone else, and vice versa...

[Ray]

Notwithstanding the western capitalist mode of economy, the countries where there is liberalisation and globalisation and yet under govt scrutiny, they did not suffer in a major way during the economy meltdown that sort of crippled the totally capitalist Govts.

Therefore, the chance of China's economy collapsing when the Govt can 'tweak' the economy by changing priorities and diverting funds cannot be overlooked. More so,when it is not accountable to the people as would be in democracies, including socialist democracies.

In so far as the issue of the US 'capturing' China is concerned, one wonders why should it?

Is there any requirement to waste finance and effort to do so? The mighty USSR bit dust without a single shot fired even in anger.

There are many ways how to defeat a country.

Sun Tsu comes to mind:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

The US has done it to the mighty USSR following this dictum.

If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind?

Already, the Chinese aspirations have been notched way high!

China's 'Wealth Drain': New Signs That Rich Chinese Are Set on Emigrating

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...077139,00.html

[Dayuhan]

Notwithstanding the western capitalist mode of economy, the countries where there is liberalisation and globalisation and yet under govt scrutiny, they did not suffer in a major way during the economy meltdown that sort of crippled the totally capitalist Govts.

Therefore, the chance of China's economy collapsing when the Govt can 'tweak' the economy by changing priorities and diverting funds cannot be overlooked. More so,when it is not accountable to the people as would be in democracies, including socialist democracies.

There is no "totally capitalist" economy anywhere on this planet.

I would hesitate to attribute the relatively low impact of the crisis on China to government scrutiny or tweaks. I think it would be more accurate to say that as a relatively new entrant, China's interdependence is not as fully established or its business cycles as fully synchronized as those of the long-term planet.

China's economy can (and likely will) still suffer major problems, and I don't think it at all likely that government is going to be able to do all that much about them. The banking system is very opaque, very corrupt, very messy, huge sums out in very shaky loans backed by questionable assets, when they are backed by anything. Real estate is in major bubble mode. Nepotism and cronyism are major issues. Growth is still there, but the percentage of that growth driven by totally speculative activity, particularly in real estate but also in equities, grows every year. Lots of potential for trouble.

In so far as the issue of the US 'capturing' China is concerned, one wonders why should it?

There would be no point at all in any such effort, IMO.

Is there any requirement to waste finance and effort to do so? The mighty USSR bit dust without a single shot fired even in anger.

There are many ways how to defeat a country.

To me the great risk in dealing with China is not that China will grow forever and devour the world, but that the China we know will fall flat on its face, face a popular uprising, and that out of the mess rises a hard-line military-dominated government promising to ditch all those corrupt evil businessmen, return to the pure communist path, and make China great again.

China's 'Wealth Drain': New Signs That Rich Chinese Are Set on Emigrating

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...077139,00.html

There's a whole lot of pissed off people in China, at every economic level.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,

To me the great risk in dealing with China is not that China will grow forever and devour the world, but that the China we know will fall flat on its face, face a popular uprising, and that out of the mess rises a hard-line military-dominated government promising to ditch all those corrupt evil businessmen, return to the pure communist path, and make China great again.

I think that is definitely one possibility.

[Ray]

I think that is definitely one possibility.

That is what is possibly being aimed at?

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Ray View Post
China's 'Wealth Drain': New Signs That Rich Chinese Are Set on Emigrating

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...077139,00.html

Posted by Dayuhan,
There's a whole lot of pissed off people in China, at every economic level.

What could be the reason why people are leaving when China and Chinese are flourishing and getting rich?

Obviously, even now China's environment is conducive to making more and more money while foreign countries are economically floundering.

What are the rules in China to take money out of China?

[Ray]

China is doing well!

China's 'Underground Great Wall' could swing nuclear balance

The Chinese military has reportedly built a huge underground tunnel network from which nuclear missiles can be deployed. Picture: PLA artillery troops conduct a drill. (File Photo/CFP)

China's strategic missile squadron, the Second Artillery Division, has built an "Underground Great Wall" stretching for more than 5,000km in the north of the country, according to a report in Hong Kong's Ta Kung Pao on Saturday. Citing the People's Liberation Army's official newsletter, the paper said the underground tunnel system has been built to conceal nuclear weapons to ensure the nation's second strike capability.

According to state broadcaster CCTV, the tunnel network, reportedly hundreds of meters underground, has been under construction since 1995 and can withstand several nuclear attacks. A documentary broadcast by CCTV in March 2008 revealed that the PLA had been building underground facilities enabling it to launch a counterstrike in case of a first strike scenario. The news has received very little attention both in the west and in Asia, despite the vast scale of the project.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-s...20110823000030

From another place. Cant vouch for the veracity.

[Backwards Observer]

Que sera sera...

FEATURE: Warming ties with China stoke Taiwan’s identity crisis

By Ben Blanchard / Reuters, Greater Kaohsiung, Oct 26, 2011

[...]

When it comes to China, the crucial aspect for many Taiwanese is they want the right to decide their own future.

“You can’t choose your relatives, but you can choose whether to spend time with them,” said Kaohsiung gallery curator Jemmy Chu, overseeing an exhibition on 100 years since the fall of China’s last emperor and establishment of the Republic of China.

One day, perhaps, China could have a democratic revolution too, he said.

“At the moment China is like a bad grandmother who you would not want to have anything to do with. That could change. People complain about China, but the Taiwanese have short memories. We were once exactly like them and we were able to change,” Chu said.

Warming ties with China stoke Taiwan's identity crisis - Taipei Times - Oct 26, 2011.

Special Bogus Link

[Backwards Observer]

Somewhat related to this area of concern, a review of Niall Ferguson's, Civilisation:

To a reader from the world the British supposedly made, Empire belonged recognisably to the tradition of what the Chinese thinker Tang Tiaoding bluntly described in 1903 as ‘white people’s histories’. Swami Vivekananda, India’s most famous 19th-century thinker, articulated a widespread moral disapproval of the pith-helmeted missionaries of Western civilisation celebrated by Ferguson:

Intoxicated by the heady wine of newly acquired power, fearsome like wild animals who see no difference between good and evil, slaves to women, insane in their lust, drenched in alcohol from head to foot, without any norms of ritual conduct, unclean … dependent on material things, grabbing other people’s land and wealth by hook or crook … the body their self, its appetites their only concern – such is the image of the western demon in Indian eyes.

Watch This Man - Pankaj Mishra - London Review of Books - Nov 3, 2011.

(A tip of the topee to the 'not drenched in alcohol' and no doubt, sanely lustful mat sallehs at The Interpreter)
...
To a Louse by Robert Burns
...
no. wire. hangers!

[Backwards Observer]

US Lawmaker addresses the treasonous and immoral behaviour of companies that do business with China:

In 2001, a book was published titled, "IBM and the Holocaust." A New York Times book review describes how IBM had "global control of a technology that was enormously helpful, indeed indispensable, to the Nazi machinery of war and annihilation." The Times review quotes the author of the book as saying that many companies did what IBM did. They "refused to walk away from the extraordinary profits obtainable from trading with a pariah state..."

Arguably that assessment rings true today. Only the pariah state has changed.

Those in positions of leadership, be they in the private sector or in government, do our country a disservice when they gloss over or ignore the actions of the Chinese government. They put us squarely on the wrong side of history.

The Chinese government brutally represses its own people. It persecutes people of faith. It censors the Internet. It maintains labor camps.

The Chinese government actively engages in cyber-espionage. It steals state secrets. It aligns itself with countries directly at odds with U.S. interests. It supports genocidal governments and buttresses rogue regimes.

There's a legal term, "willful blindness," that aptly described our dealings to date with China. Faced with these painful truths, blindness is no longer an option.

In the words of British abolitionist, William Wilberforce, "Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did not know."

Wolf: U.S. Should Not Cooperate With People's Liberation Army to Help Develop China's Space Program - Space Ref - Nov 2, 2011.

[Backwards Observer]

US Lawmaker addresses treasonous and immoral behaviour of Nepal:

"We're not just going to cut them, we're going to zero them out," said Wolf, a Republican from Virginia and outspoken critic of China.

"If they're not willing to do it, then they don't share our values and if they don't share our values, we do not want to share our dollars," he told a congressional hearing on Tibet.

US lawmaker threatens Nepal aid over Tibetans - AFP - Nov 4, 2011.

[Backwards Observer]

US Lawmaker addresses lack of Human Rights in China:

"The Congressional-Executive Commission on China has recently issued its tenth annual report on China's human rights and rule of law developments. The report also marks a decade since China acceded to membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) after being granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the United States the previous year.

"I opposed PNTR for China, given its abysmal human rights record, unfair trade practices, and disdain for the rule of law. Over a decade later, we can see that economic engagement with and trade liberalization for China did not produce political liberalization and thus granting PNTR was a mistake. Documented in the Commission's report is a clear picture of a China where human rights lawyers disappear, 'black jails' illegally imprison those who seek to voice dissent, Falun Gong practitioners are mercilessly persecuted, and the internet is censored by thought police."

Ros-Lehtinen Opening Statement at Hearing on Human Rights, Rule of Law in China - Menafn.com - Nov 4, 2011.