The Growth Of China As A Major Power

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jwintons,)
I am curious whether or not the regular contributors to this thread believe the economic strengthening of China will have positive or negative affects for the US, viz. will their increasing role in the world market pose a threat to the US or rather, will they serve as a friend in trade?

I am of the opinion that their development is good only if we engage interactively in trade with them... becuase I believe that when two nations' economies are dependant upon one another, they are less willing to dispute and more willing to compromise in political issues. China might pose a serious problem to the security of our nation if we do not use our economy for protection, but if we engage more actively in trade with them, might they be more willing to reform in the areas of human rights violations, and also aid in negotiations with asian weapons proliferators like North Korea?

Contrariwise, their devolopment is negative if we regard them as a threat. If they lose nothing for going to war with us, they might side with asian weapons proliferators in trade and political stances. Let us not forget they are not a free nation... Do the contributors believe that the most effective way to reform such a nations policy is through diplomacy and trade, or war?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

At the rate we are going, we needn't worry about trade or war, the Chinese will simply forclose on America. We are sending dollars for goods, but our dollars are backed by what exactly? Our manufacturing base perhaps? Intellectual property? Oil? Wall Street?

What are we trading? Shiploads of wheat for shiploads of Kiss Me Elmo dolls?

The Chinese have learned frugality, and productivity. We have discovered a higher plane. Consumerism and debt. Perhaps we can sell some of our "service economy" winners like Haliburton to them, but that won't help the trade imbalance, The big companies are multinational and thumb their noses at America's effort to collect real taxes from them.

We could always rent out our military to them in trade. We are certainly #1 in that honorable arena :rolleyes:

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)

Realpolitik speaking, we've got a new world power on our hands. As for the EU -empires aren't run by committee. If they got a single man to run the multi-country union, then we'd see some real things coming from them soon.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Oh but that might cut down the amount of red tape etc, no never the EU won't allow that.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (SecondComing,)
At the rate we are going, we needn't worry about trade or war, the Chinese will simply forclose on America. We are sending dollars for goods, but our dollars are backed by what exactly? Our manufacturing base perhaps? Intellectual property? Oil? Wall Street?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

China is one of the main US financers nowadays. It has invested billions of dollars in bonds (is that the correct term?) which the US needs to try and keep their deficits more or less in check. In effect, the US is more and more depending on China to keep it's economy going.

Add to that the fact that, yes, the dollar relies mostly on oil, and combine that with the chance of oil producing countries to switch from dollars to euros and you have a looming economic disaster...

[Pooeypants]

Anyone up for a holiday in the US? 1 pound gets you 1.89 USD now...

[RebelWithanAK]

Oh, China isn't the only one loaning money to the US, but there will sure be hell to pay when those loans default...

[terstorm]

Interesting thread.

I think China now is where Japan was in 1900. We'll be okay (as the US as sole superpower) until 2010. After that, all bets are off.

Rebel's right, it's not going to be good when those loans default on the US. I'm thinking hyperinflation.

Rebel's also right about China not being the only one, but they're well underway of becoming the biggest investor, even bigger than Japan.

[castille]

China's army itself is not a formidable force (compared with the US), but their ability to mass produce both missiles and equipment, as well as the unlimited manpower, can weigh heavily in a war.

So really, a war with China will see China losing the first few rounds, but once mass production kicks into place, it will become one of the world's most destructive wars, and both sides will feel the pain.

[RebelWithanAK]

Dear lord, Castille's right about something!

But China, you realize, has a standing army of about two million. There will be no winning that war.

[castille]

Numbers of soldiers matters very little. Its a socialist/Communist tradition to have lots of soldiers, but what they dont realise is you have to sacrifice quality for quantity.

For example, imagine your war budget is $100. Each soldier requires $10 to upkeep (they require food, salary, equipment, and living conditions).

Now, if you have 100 soldiers, you can only spend $1 per soldier. This means you need food for 100 soldiers, bed for 100 soldiers, but each soldier is poorly trained, poor equipment.

Now, what if you had 10 soldiers? Well, you can afford to spend $10 on each of them. This means you have 10 highly-trained soldiers, with well-maintained equipment, while the other 90 people can make weapons for them to use. And of course, they use less supplies due to low numbers, and are easier to manage.

Manpower is only important for work. 1.3 billion people in China are good for one thing: producing missiles, equipment, food, supplies, etc.


However, in this age of ICBMs and jet aircraft, numbers are starting to mean less and less. Its about technology, doctrine, and probably missile development and production.

[RebelWithanAK]

Castille, China spends about 17 billion on its military. That's more than enough. Broken down, that's $8,500 per man a year. That's a lot of equipment. True, that doesn't compare to our 300 billion, but it's not like we've ever won a war with fighter jets alone. We spend billion after billion on our air force, because that produces the fewest casualties in war, but you can't win a war with the air force, and we simply don't have enough bombs to bombard a country the same size as us.

[terstorm]

Actually, the Chinese make the computer chips for our fighter jets. That does not sit well with me.

[castille]

Rebel, $8500 for a single soldier is not a lot.

Thats approximately $3000 wages per year, $2000 training, $2000 equipment, and $1500 food/living quarters. Don't forget fuel, production costs, supply maintainence, training costs, etc.

Compare this with say Australia, which spends (US) $40,000 on each soldier. Hell, you can get paid $30,000 a year just to be in the reserves.

In any case, a Sino-US war will never occur, because both sides aren't suicidal enough to kill each other. And if it does happen, I can assure you Europe and Russia will be drawn into the destruction, specially with today's climate.

[RebelWithanAK]

Castille, prove your figures.

[rmnunez]

On the Taiwanese attempted double magnicide:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Chen was rushed to hospital in Tainan, his home town, where he received 14 stitches in an 11-cm (five-inch) long, three-cm (one-inch) deep wound. Television reports said the 54-year-old president was able to walk into the hospital for treatment. Lu, 59, was hit in the right leg and had to be assisted into the building but her condition was not serious, officials said. "The shooters probably were in the crowd because the wound to the president was on an upward trajectory," an official said. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Impact on elections unlcear:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Analysts said most voters had already made their choice based on policy and were unlikely to be swayed by emotion now. Chen aggressively advocates independence from China while Lien favors a conciliatory approach to the island's giant foe. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
We could be in for a surprise, look at Spain’s elections after the terrorist attack. Though this incident in no way compares to the train attacks in Madrid, the pedestrian reaction has been strong:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In the capital on Friday night, thousands of Chen supporters gathered outside DPP headquarters, singing campaign songs and chanting: "Elect A-bian" -- the president's popular nickname. Police put the turnout at 4,000-5,000. "We feel very proud, because our own president, our leader, asked his own supporters to be calm despite what had happened," said teacher Liao Wen-bo, 61. "We are going to use our votes as our bullets tomorrow." <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
On the gamble:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Underground bookies had been offering even money on a Lien victory by a margin of 850,000 votes while on Chen they were offering odds of 1.15-1 for a win by any margin. "Maybe this will narrow down the margin, but I doubt it will be enough to get him re-elected," said George Tsai, analyst at the Institute of International Relations in Taipei. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The PRC:
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Chen has called a controversial referendum on boosting the island's defenses, setting the vote for Saturday alongside the presidential poll. The step has enraged Beijing, which sees the move as a harbinger of steps toward independence. Beijing views the referendum as a dry run for a vote on Taiwan independence that it says could lead to war. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/38664...48|reuters.html
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Taiwan has accused Beijing of intimidation, after China opted to stage rare naval drills with France in the run-up to Taiwan's elections. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3512088.stm
France shouldn’t be involved here at all, they probably are looking to improve commercial ties and think this is the best way.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
France is also lobbying EU countries to drop the 15-year-old embargo on arms sales to China, imposed after the brutal 1989 suppression of pro-democracy demonstrators, the Financial Times said. On the diplomatic front, France angered Taiwan recently by strongly condemning President Chen Shui-bian's plan to hold a referendum on missile defense as part of this coming Saturday's election, prompting Taipei to suspend top-level ties with Paris. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If the elections give Chen and his defense proposition a victory, and the PRC sees this as a “dry-run” before the independence referéndum, would they attack when this gets announced? Maybe the US Navy can spare an aircraft carrier to show the flag for their longstanding ally?

[castille]

RebelwithanAK - You lied about your figures - China does not have 2 million men in their army. So why is a liar telling me to prove my figures?

But since you insist - consult the PRC white papers. Every page is filled with figures of spending.


Don't forget, like many Americans, your view of other countries is very much based on what you hear from the media. And no, Will Hung doesn't make an accurate estimation of PLA combat research statistics.

China WILL be a threat to the US in about ten years. They have purchased US nuclear secrets from the last administration and should have their new missile technology ready in the above mentioned time frame. To say there will be no conflict is rediculous. Just look how they acted when they forced down one of our spy planes three years ago. The ROC wants Taiwan back real bad. Does anyone think they won't try to take it back when they have a few hundred megatons of warheads pointed at the US?

[peace_hawk]

When I was 12 I asked my mom about the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) from Soviet nuclear weapons. She said "dear, they can't make a car that lasts 5 years, why should we worry about their missles?" Even if the Chinese are able to keep up their level of economic growth for that long they will still be a long way from being able to match the USA on the high seas or the air. Love him or hate him Bush is making the moves to neutralize any Chinese threat of nuclear blackmail through the weaponization of space. ICBMs countered from space, no naval threat? China remains a VERY powerful regional power but just that. If the Taiwanese can be kept in their box, the Pacific should remain a relavely safe place. While the Chinese people may be more willing to suffer than the
american people, the elites know they have it good and are looking to influence Washington, not confront it. Who knows China may have its own Islamist threat in a few years and we'll have a great big party (the US, Russia, the EU and China) and sing Kum-by-ya around a campfire and toast marshmellows.

I hope your right PH. I would hate to get into a pissing match with a billion plus population country. Good point about SDI. If it works it could make nuclear war obsolete. Except for backpack nukes.

[rmnunez]

Here's an interesting article on China (and Japan's) "rude awakening" after 7 Chinese were kidnapped in Iraq:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040412/1/3jff6.html