New Thread
AuthorOldest to Newest
Sickle1001
Joined: 06 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 6 June 2005 11:30 AM With China building and buying many new advance weapons and the United States doing the same thing. Are we seeing the begining to a much larger arms race in the decades to come? Or is this just me?

Post Reply
Nimrod1001
Joined: 04 February 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 7 June 2005 1:37 AM I don't think so. The money China is using to upgrade all areas of it's economy and military is based on trade with the US, and a fair percentage of Chinese businesses are owned by Taiwanese. All three countries have a mutual dependency these days. China needs the US market, Taiwan needs Chinese labour and the US needs China's cheap goods to keep inflation down.

I think that the newer weapon purchases by China are not in themselves an offensive buildup, but more a realization that the old Chinese military couldn't have fought its way out of a wet paper bag.

Unless some feat of anti-diplomacy is performed by a Taiwanese politician I doubt whether China would feel that a confrontation would be in it's best interests.



Post Reply
Sickle1001
Joined: 06 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 7 June 2005 9:47 PM A fair point, but both of our nations are already planning for a future war with each other. Why would China upgrade its nuclear weapons? I know they were out of date, but there is no longer a threat of all out nuclear war. China is also building a massive information warfare program. Why? It seem that where we now stand is the great superpower fueling its enemies. Oil from the middle east and cheap products from China. Our we going to sit idlally by and let our economey further become dependent on theirs?

Post Reply
Nimrod1001
Joined: 04 February 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 9 June 2005 10:13 AM Yes. Nuclear weapons are really an ultimate tool of diplomacy rather than the ultimate weapon, because you would never dare use them against someone else who has them.

And information warfare is warfare of the future. And unlike other types of clandestine activities, you don't need to plant agents in someone elses territory.

So I see a situation of China doing its best to put itself in a good position to bargain with the US. China want's Taiwan, and if they have the economic and military strength to bend the will of the US, they can have it without a fight.

They know you can be worn down and bluffed. It's the only way anyone has survived war with the US for 70 years. Korea, Vietnam, and now some wavering in Iraq tell them you can be had. They just need to be patient. They don't need to actually go to war.

Post Reply
Sickle1001
Joined: 06 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 9 June 2005 6:26 PM Well since China will eventually get the best of us, would it not be an intellegent move to strike first, while we have the upper hand as the "megapower"? Or should we just sit and watch China and India replace the Western powers?



Post Reply
Nimrod1001
Joined: 04 February 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 9 June 2005 9:13 PM Strike first? Well sure, only if you think the downtown areas of your major cities need some urban renewal. Nuclear weapons make it fairly moot who wins such a conflict. Fighting by proxy could still happen, with a lot of posturing on both sides.

Remember, If China does use a military solution get Taiwan, it can win by taking over the island. If the US uses a military solution, it can only win by invading China. Simply stopping an invasion only gets a draw and you are right back where you started.

As to stiking while you are the only superpower? Eh, empires come and go. You've only really been at the top for 30 years, don't bring it all crashing down because suddenly there is amoment of doubt about whether it will last.

Post Reply
Sickle1001
Joined: 06 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 11 June 2005 7:06 PM Well telling from your last post, I'm guessing that your not from the US. I was wondering what nation you are from. If we (the US) could get the missile sheild to work, I wouldn't really fear China's nukes. They supposedly they only have at tops 50 ICBM's and with only one SSBN what would be the threat. Anyways I really could care less about Taiwan, I'm more worried for the economies of Europe and US. I really do not want to see the fall of the Western powers to the Asian countries(India and China).

Post Reply
Nimrod1001
Joined: 04 February 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 12 June 2005 1:52 AM I'm from the large landmass about as far south of China as you can go without meeting a penguin, so I am a friend, and with an economy tied closely to yours.

Missile shield? Even the most optimistic projections for all of the technologies you are exploring do not protect the continental US from nuclear attack by multiple warheads. The system is designed to protect key points in the US and above US troops abroad from a small number of launches by smaller states. And you haven't got it all working yet!

Perhaps that will change in the future, but regardless, when you are fighting against any nuclear delivery system (Whether it's an ICBM or a stealth cruise missile- China is trying to get a stealth fighter in the air, if they saw the need to penetrate a sophisticated US defence, a stealth missile is an easier option) the advantage lies with the attacker, as even a few missiles would ruin your whole day!

If you don't care about Taiwan, why would you think the US and China would ever have anything to fight over?

Post Reply
Sickle1001
Joined: 06 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 12 June 2005 12:24 PM If history has tought us anything to superpowers cannot exist together for very long. It has always been the strong will survive. It started with Anicent Greece. Sparta and Athenas had to go to war because they had different ideas and because each had a powerful military it was inevitiable that a war would come. Now 3,000 years later the same can be applied. Eventually China will have their own idea of how the world hshould turn, and they won't care about what the US and Australia think because they have four times our population and an incredible industrial base to turn out a war machine that would rival what the US had in WWII.

Personally I think the US has become like the Germans or Japanese of WWII. We have a very powerful and advanced military but we can be overwhelmed by slightly less, but more numerous military. I.E. China.

About Taiwan. I care, but I doubt that by the Chinese attack them. The US will be unable or unwilling to help. I read an article that told of two Exocet missile almost sinking the USS Stark a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser. So the point of that is that the invicible US fleet cannot stop a cruise missile as much as we thought. China is desperally trying to develop cruise missile that we hamper any attempt to support Taiwan. So Taiwan won't be the major breaking point that everyone has crack it up to be.

Post Reply
Gemini1002
Joined: 14 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 1
Posted on 14 June 2005 1:48 PM One of the biggest dangers of a so-called 'missile-shield' is that someone might have enough confidence in it to lessen the priority of preventing the launch of enemy nukes.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) may seem insane at first glance, but it has successfully prevented a single nuclear attack from taking place for the entire time that multiple nations have had nukes.

Of course there are some that see this as a failure: All those decades of spending on lots of nukes and we've never gotten to use one, despite being in a lot of wars in the meantime. Thus the major effort right now to make nuclear weapons 'tactically useful', by on one hand developing new weapons that fot today's battlefield, while on the other developing missile defenses to negate MAD.

Post Reply
Ghauri1003
Joined: 29 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 2
Posted on 29 June 2005 3:39 AM Greeting to all.

The fact that china is becoming a superpower is indeed interesting. When you look at their population, rescources and land mass they are a powerful nation.

But their rate of development is what may level them out. With such a huge population, as their standard of living increases, they will eat themselves out of house and home. They may plunder their own rescources to such a piont as they end up relying on imports to fuel thier economy. Pollution and the like will begin to effect their food production rates and tears will begin to show. Their one great strenght -population- may bring them down.

If this is so, and China knows, then they have a limited time to remove a force that may hamper its rescource base expansion. America. A war between the two could not end well. I doubt either party will stand down. By the time a war like this comes around I believe the US will not be willing to lose face in a sparking issue (maybe invasion of Taiwan?).

A war between these two nations and their allies would have to be the end of both of them. Although, depending on contamination levels, the US would stand a better chance of recovery. But as far a world powers, neither nation would be capable. This is just one of my theories, please feel free to rip through as this is one of my favorite talking pionts.

-Thanks, Jared.

Post Reply
Nimrod1001
Joined: 04 February 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 29 June 2005 7:45 AM Just looking long term Ghauri1003, do you feel that China's 1 child policy will lead to a nation of old codgers much sooner than the same trend in the US?

If China feels that a chance is slipping through it's fingers, might the worsening economic circumstances you are aluding to precipitate a grab for Taiwan? If so, wouldn't strengthening trade relations with China (If it's possible to do any more trade than we are already doing!) be the best defence against a war?

Post Reply
Sickle1001
Joined: 06 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 29 June 2005 11:29 PM I strongly agree with you Ghuari1003. China and the US are on path to war. It is only a matter of when. When do you think that China will need to make such a land grab?



Post Reply
Ghauri1003
Joined: 29 June 2005
Posts in this thread: 2
Posted on 30 June 2005 12:49 AM Greetings

You make an excellent point with the 'ageing population factor'. Western nations such as the UK, US, Canada and Australia are all seeing the effects of an ageing population. As the 'baby boomers' age and die out a severe reduction in populationg growth is being seen. And most importantly the number of people working compared to retired sees a drop in economy

But I thinks China wont see that for another 30 or so years. Right when China really begins to guzzle fossil fuels is when it will dry up. I don't think there industry would handle the change to an alternative fuel to well either.

These events and then maybe Nimrod's piont of the ageing population begining to take effect would see massive recession. Thus maybe it will end with a huge government collapse like that of the USSR.

To the nitty gritty of it, the American population is not a unit at the moment. The only time they unite is when something bad happens ie a war in which there is a direct threat to a nation, a world war. Their economy is massive, including a huge concentration of brain power.

China is a massive nation with a hardworking population that is, in my opinion, a little to far behind in technology. They a are going through a fossil fuel boom right when the stuff is getting hard to find. The possibilty of a major conflict involving China cannot be ignored. Western nations have gone to war on issues that are developing for China.

I dont want anyone thinking I am rascist towards chinese or any race. I beleive any race would be facing the same dilemas given the same circumstances. It is just human nature the way these things happen.

I hope some people come along and work out a way we can all excist together. It would be better if an alien spacecraft came to visit as that would be fantastic for the planet. Suddenly All eyes look to the sky and space and the world would stand a chance to unite and jet off into the stars<?>.

But really I think all nations need to play nice or where in the poo.

Thanks, Jared.

Post Reply
Aquarius1001
Joined: 21 August 2005
Posts in this thread: 1
Posted on 21 August 2005 8:21 PM i really don't think china is the treat that people belive. and the us is not that bad off in terms of strenght. our economy may not be in the best of shape but it is far from bad. our military is way more advanced than china's. if our air forces went against each other it would be like the mariana's turkey shoot. chinese air craft would be falling out of the sky faster than we could count. And our navy is far more powerful than there's. and if they get us americans mad enough our manufacturing would be like world war two again and maybe even better than the level it was in world war 2. remember this a efficent economy is alway's better than a large inefficent one.

Post Reply
Sardine1003
Joined: 30 August 2005
Posts in this thread: 1
Posted on 30 August 2005 3:19 AM America is interested in controlling the oil production in the middle east, bottom line. If we can control production and distribution to certain countries, we can win wars against countries like China and Russia. The worlds supply of oil is dangerously low, an example would be the very high prices of a barrel of crude. Why do you think there is so much opposition to us being in Iraq. If George Bush was an honest president, he would have declared war on OPEC. China has a huge demand for crude oil, they are an industrial nation with a huge population. If America has control of oil producing nations, or at least a presence in those countries, we ultimately will control who receives it. This issue has been debated for decades but I think it has been overlooked lately with all that is happening. Anyone agree or disagree or agree to disagree?

Post Reply
Nimrod1001
Joined: 04 February 2005
Posts in this thread: 6
Posted on 30 August 2005 3:52 AM Perhaps.

Lots of oil in Siberia and in other places than the Middle East.

I do not see energy as being a flash point between the US and China. Too many people want to sell to China, and there is no way to stop that. I would even go so far as to say that in a hypothetical situation where my country (Australia) was in a position to have to stop NG and coal exports to China because of a US supported trade embargo, we might not. Lots of jobs and money in those industries, and If it came down to picking between China and the US, it would be a hard sell either way.

China isn't Cuba, and would be impossible to hurt in the way that you suggest. To hard to stop Oil, NG and coal comming in, and the entire world trades with it.

Post Reply
Orion1003
Joined: 07 February 2006
Posts in this thread: 1
Posted on 7 February 2006 7:56 PM It'd be kinda like how the U.S. was a little mad at Britain in WWI for Blockading Germany, trade benefits everyone, and if its cut off it also hurts everyone(thats involved anyways)

Post Reply
Libra1003
Joined: 01 April 2006
Posts in this thread: 1
Posted on 1 April 2006 5:41 PM China is spending money not to out do the US but to try and close the gap a little in a few years its a well known fact the US will be 20 years or so a head of the Chinese in technolodgy so yes they have to spend alot just to try and keep up for now so the gap doesnt widen any further. I dont think you will see an all out cold war like the US had with the Russians do to the fact both countries need each other to keep certain regions safe and they need each other for trade the tiawan issue is really the only issue shina has with the US milatarily and right now without using nuke china would have a hard time invading tiawan there military is very well equiped and trained. Maybe a minor cold war but nothing big.

Post Reply
Sampson1007
Joined: 24 August 2007
Posts in this thread: 2
Posted on 24 August 2007 4:02 PM To enter into another cold war, the united states would need more autonomy and china's economy would have to become more less dependent on the united state's business.

Post Reply
Copyright © 2003-2014 deagel.com website. All rights reserved.
This website has been optimized for HTML 5 and CSS 3.