The stupidity of your post about saving fuel by launching an attack from Taiwan instead of mainly land China has nothing to due with chess or military strategy. The Chinese mainland city of Harbin, where the recent water contamination problem occurred and their largest airplane production facility is located is MORE THAN 1000 MILES CLOSER TO THE US than any point on Taiwan! You are just too ignorant for words. Get a globe, not a flat map, and see that the shortest route to US mainland goes over Alaska. Do you know the Earth is not flat and that “great circle routes” are the shortest routes, or is this part of your ignorance also?
Ya' mean that the "bullies" are once again pushing you around .....and ye're letting them get away with it? (I'm beginning to see why ye're bullied so much!) Baron Max
I have been rethinking The US, China, Taiwan triangle. I still stand by the US not confronting China over anything China wants to do to Taiwan if the Chinese bond buying was at risk of stopping. My change is that I now don't think it is in the interest of China's rulers for China to have control of Taiwan. Taiwan facilitates a lot of investment into China. Taiwan operating with global capitalist rules and culture helps China connect it's abilities to the worlds markets. Forcing Taiwanese into China would dreate another group of dissidents that might cross pollinate with other dissidents in China and create trouble. Removing the Taiwan drama by taking Taiwan would remove a source of unity in China. Taking Taiwan by force would raise expectations of Chinese that they are a great power and therefore the people should be rich and the government should be just. The Chinese rulers might be only pretending to want Taiwan.
To be clear, we're talking about the Yuan becoming stronger, and the dollar holding steady, as compared to other currencies. While this might not do much about the total US trade deficit, it would certainly have an effect on the China-US bilateral trade balance. That is, while a 25% increase in the Yuan might not move any manufacturing from China to the US, it would surely move a bunch from China to some other, cheaper country (India, say). That said, every credible source I've seen on the topic seems to think it would take a whole lot more than a 25% increase to put an end to the Sino-American trade imbalance. So perhaps a cessation in T-bill purchasing wouldn't be enough of a boost to end the trade imbalance. At the end of the day, all I was trying to get across is that China *must* finance the trade imbalance, or it will cease to exist. I say this because people look at the large amounts of cash flowing from the US to China and start thinking the sky is falling, but the fact is that China just turns around and dumps it all back into the US. Whether they do it via T-Bills, stockpiling dollar reserves, or buying US assetts is a secondary issue. As various PRC officials like to point out, there is almost no imbalance in the Sino-American balance of payments. This means that, despite the trade imbalance, there is no large-scale transfer of wealth taking place from the US to China. All of the proceeds from the trade imbalance just get recycled back into America. Thus, there is no huge stream of dollars for the Chinese government to use on whatever hairbrained plans to sabotage the US. Indeed, sabotaging the US economy would amount to shooting themselves in the foot, so the Chinese would have to be morons try it.
The US doesn't really give a damn about Taiwan. That should have been clear 30 years ago when Nixon opened up relations with the Mainland and they took over China's spot on the Security Council. At the end of the day, it's a billion-man superstate vs. a small island city-state. The basic US prerogative is to establish a stable, peaceful framework for Asian security. Quite obviously, China has a large role to play in such an undertaking, and the major issue is exactly how to incorporate them into the existing US-backed Asian framework. While China might like the idea of being an undisputed regional hegemon, with an empire extending to Hawaii and Australia, such an outcome is unrealistic, not least because of the considerable firepower of the US military. Likewise, the American government would probably like to remain unchallenged boss of the area, but China has long since outgrown such a scenario. It is in light of these facts that the current era of close economic ties arose, as the cornerstone of a third path which would see America accomodating a larger Chinese role in the region, without either side having to pay for costly, risky wars. The first part of the deal is establishing the sphere of immediate Chinese control, i.e., their national territory. It has already been formally agreed by both sides that Taiwan will be a part of such an entity. The only question is when and on what terms. Ultimately, Taiwan itself has little say in this issue, although they can potentially make it very difficult for either side. While China would surely like to formally absorb Taiwan as soon as possible, it is the prerogative of the US to use Taiwan as a wedge. That is, the policy is to encourage the development of Taiwan as a capitalist, democratic state, and thus to establish a standard of reform China must meet in order to peacefully assimilate it. This is possible because the US still has sufficient military advantage to prevent a forceful acquisition of Taiwan, although the pace of the process is greatly influenced by Chinese military investment. It is crucial, however, for the US and China to be seen to resolve the Taiwan issue peacefully, and with each side's credibility in the region intact. This is because such an outcome sets in place a stable regional order anchored by both the US and China. Were China to use force to take Taiwan, defeating US credibility in the region in the process, the result would be all of their neighbors getting scared and going to war against them. Were the US to prevail in a military conflict, the result would be instability in China, probably undermining much of the regional economy. Once a Sino-US order has been initiated with the resolution of the Taiwan issue, it will be cemented via the reunification of Korea. It is in that theater that we will see the final shape of the East Asian security framework. I should emphasize that such a regional order would not consist of China and the US being out-and-out allies, but rather as rival powers who have reached a regional equilibrium. Unlike many such rival powers, however, the US and China have a massive trade relationship that is crucial to both countries. This opens the long-range possibility of a stable, peaceful regional order, provided China can be satisfied with Taiwan and a few other small adjustments. Any strategic overreaching by any one country will likely have disasterous consequences for just about everyone involved.
Yeah, that's definitely an element of Chinese strategic thinking. See also Chinese involvement in Korea, Tibet and Kashmir (they grabbed a chunk back in the 1960's). That said, most Chinese people I've met seem to consider Taiwan to be an integral part of China. And the $500 Billion GDP prices them out of the pawn range. Factor in the prestige issues for the Communist party, and I have to say that China is serious about incorporating Taiwan, preferably with a minimum of infrastructure damage. It is definitely true that the acquisition of Taiwan will raise the pressure on the Communist party to liberalize, just as the acquisition of Hong Kong already has. China's development requires a more open, institutional government, and Taiwan would certainly amount to another step in that direction. But the alternative would be a disaster, both for China internationally and for the Communist party inside China. Taiwan is thus a powerful lever on Chinese political development, with the potential to ultimately bring Chinese national politics into harmony with modern Democratic styles of government. The big question is when China will get a multi-party system of government, and whether the Communists will give up their monopoly on power peacefully.
You sound sensible. You might fit OK with neocon light/ Clinton, but PNAC and therefore the Bush administration don't believe in even a cold partnership when a hundred years of US domination of the world is only a grasp away according to their fantasies. PNAC's real purpose might be just to give more tax dollars to the arms industry but to do so they need enemyship with China as a backup in case the Islamic fundamentalist don't inspire enough fear in Americans.
Currently true, but not etched in stone or a law of physics. It can change over night, with little problem for China and disaster for US. The US would need to buy more presses to print more dollars to pay it current bills. Obviously the value of each would dramatically fall. As this happens other countries would get out of dollars that are rapidly losing value and this will only accelerate the dollar's collapse. Look at the economic bomb the US has given China: Reserves in billions of dollars held by: China (sept05) ....769 S.Korea9(Oct05)..207.2 India (Oct05).......137.6 Japan (Oct05)......841.8 Russia (oct).........161.2 Taiwan (Oct05)....252.0* __________________________________ * One of several reasons why the mainland does really want to get Taiwan back. In addition to national pride, Taiwan being one of the worlds most efficient per capita production centers and one of largest suppliers of IC chips, etc. technology are some other reasons. Effectively, by borrowing for years, at an ever increasing rate, to live beyond its means, the US has built a "chain reaction" economic bomb that China can touch off any time it wishes. China does not need one thing from US and as you point out, really is currently getting essentially nothing from US now but IOUs that it returns to the US economy by financing the US debt, building this economic bomb even bigger each year. Their recent great increase in defensive military expenditures is probably based on fear that a severely wounded, collapsing US, which still possesses a stronger military, might try to make "regime change" on the mainland, in the name of human rights or democracy etc. China increasingly needs raw materials and food stocks. Brazil sold them 3.7 billion in 2004 and 4.8 billion this year, to date, 1.5 billion of which was soybeans and a large amount of iron ore, but I do not have the number. Again: China does not need the US. Why do you say it must finance the US debt? You are also wrong to say that the trade imbalance will automatically stop if China, et al, do not finance the US debt. US government expenditures, (Baby boomers collecting Social Security, Iraq war, Military equipment, Katrina promisses, etc.) will not stop. These expenses will be payed by printing more dollars. Inflation will get out of control, further erroding the willingness of foreigners to lend to US. But the better off in US will still be drinking french wine etc. Imports will fall only slightly, but every month it will take more dollars to pay for them. The Interest bill on the US debt will skyrocket as Interest rates soar to 10 or 15 %. Later by edit: I expect that the physics volume of imports may fall 25 or 30% but oil imports only by about 10% because people in the NE still need to heat their houses, planes need to fly, oil fired electric plants still burn oil, etc. However, the cost of the lessor volume of imports will increase by at least 30% as the dollar value falls. China and others will not just "dump their dollars", but be increasingly willing to buy oil in the ground reserves, build and buy production facilities, etc even if payingly excessive prices for them, as that way their loses on holding dollars are reduced.
Humans are like parasites. It is estimated that 1million species will disappear by 2050. What is going to be left? Humans, dogs and flys. Well, maybe more then that. But, hey! That sounds like a parasite to me. Humans are like a disease for the planet. But whatever, ya know? What's the point anyways? Who is to judge what is good or not? We can always become an advanced civilization that will expand into the universe and change things for better. Of course, we could also destroy ourselves or the planet first, but hey! It is all very poetical. Like the works of a crazy god from another dimension. Doesn't matter what happens in the end. It's the journey that is cool, man. :m: Errrr... what is this thread about again? .. Oh yeah. So I don't really care what happens between those two individuals or things or whatever. :m:
Really, all they would have to do is stop selling us their garbage through Walmart. In a few months we won't even have clothes to wear because the shoes and clothing not only wear out quickly, they aren't repairable. Even if we have jobs and money we won't be able to get a lot of essentials at the stores because they won't be there, and then there will be a downward spiral. The war against Iraq not only helped disable us from a military response, it took away money that could have been thrown at a solution, like loans to build or rebuilt factories in the US to supply us with the things that we need.
Yes. Just by the size of their population alone mixed with their economic progress I think they will eventually over take us in terms of economic indicators like GDP. They are the next Super Power. But they also have a lot of problems to deal with as well. None of this means we are doomed to face off against them in some type of war. Yes we will be competitors , but we are competitors with Europe and we are not likely to fight any time soon. A war would be disastorous for China and it's goals. On a side note, I personlly think India could over take China in the long run.
china is the number one manufacturuer on earth,they consume more thne anyone lese,they pollute more then us.theyt have a MUCH bigger army. the only thing we have thats greater then chinas is are use of oil,and china will have us beat in 10 years. prepare for a chinese takeover.
LOL wow. China has a big Army. oooohhhh im scared. So numbers are more important than quality? Should we be scared of T-55 tanks? T-62s? (we all now how well those worked for Saddam). Chinas equipment is CRAP. Which is why (once again) they are buying Russian stuff. Which is why they are stealing our Tech. And the biggest army in the world does you no good if you cant send it any where. And 10,000 cruise missles. So what! What are you going to blow up? They are strategic weapons, not some ultra super weapon. Maybe they can attack all the Walmarts and McDonalds. They couldnt defeat the US with only cruise missles, and sure as shit the American people who demand that we responded in force. China would gain nothing in attacking the US mainland. A small skirmish over Taiwan? (Falkan Islands style??) Maybe. But nothing too major. Both the US and China are economicly tied together.
quality? are we talking about the same americans here? the ones who buy as much chinese crap as they can choke down their fat holes. china has 1000X the manufacturing we have,hell we have MILITARY equipment made in china. china is the ONLY superpower on earth. apperently you havent read sun-tzu's the art of war.the chinese have.
Mars, you don't know any more about this topic than you do the moon landing. Isn't it about time for your mommy to change you diaper?
good insult,i bet it took you all of two seconds and ZERO orginality to come up with that one. damn,your just schooling me at insults. your so good,did you train under an insult master? i bet next youll use the same tired insult of ''i bet 13s your age or IQ''. try reading sun-tzu sometime. you appear weak to your enemies ,thats what they want you to think.so they get all cocky and ignorant in their own bias.
Let me put it plainly for you then, OK? When you say something like "China has 1000 times the manufacturing (capacity, I suppose?) we have, you are just showing your total ignorance. China has just recently gone into a massive push to build themselves up industrially and is still far from matching the US in that arena. They also have massive pollution problems and severe water shortages across the entire region. Things you quite obviously know nothing about. Why don't you just be quiet instead of showing how stupid you are? As someone else suggested, get an education! And then say something. By the way, did you also know that sentences should start with a capital letter? (Stupid kid.)
