China: The Real Threat

[RDixon]

What have they been up to since Bush TOOK the office of President of the USA?

http://www.globalfirepower.com/chinese_report.asp


Do you think Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and Condi are competent enough to deal with this?

[Mazer]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison.asp
Comparing USA to China, I see more green check marks on our side of the table. And on the right side of the page the USA is ranked first and China third. We're closely matched, but I don't think there's any reason to worry. Unlike Iran or N. Korea, the policy of mutually assured distruction would actually work against China. Since nobody is really worried about the spread of communism anymore, containment isn't an issue. At this point they represent the largest untapped commercial market in the world, and with so many business interests influencing our government, I don't expect the USA to make any serious threats against China in the near term, even if they make serious threats against us. A lot would have to happen before we engaged in any kind of war or cold war with them, which is why they aren't a real threat right now.

[Sinner]

Your eyes are wondering.....the Chinese don't need weapons to hurt the USA or the World for that matter. the U.S. now runs an annual trade deficit with China of more than $200 billion, China surpassed the United States as being the world's largest exporter. Only five years ago, the United States exported more than double the amount of China. During the first half of 2006, Chinese exports of manufactured goods reached $404 billion compared to $367 billion in exports by the United States. If Chinese exports continue growing at their current pace, Chinese manufactured exports will be more than double those of the United States in five years, there is a huge trade imbalance and it has cost at least 1.5 million jobs in the USA, the dollar is down and interest rates will raise.

This imbalance needs to be fixed and I have faith it will be.

[RDixon]

Funny; MacArthur told Truman almost that exact same thing on Wake Island just a few days before China moved a few hundred thousand troops across the border into NK whipped the living shit out of MacArthur's UN forces.

China has a long history of doing exactly what they say they will do.

You completely ignored the main point of my topic: Taiwan.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with communism.

Or as much to do with communism as the Iraq mess has to do with fighting terrorism.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Unlike Iran or N. Korea, the policy of mutually assured distruction would actually work against China.

why won't MAD work against Iran or North Korea?

[Mazer]

Because if we nuked them and they nuked us the distruction wouldn't be mutual. They simply don't have enough nukes to finish us off.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Because if we nuked them and they nuked us the distruction wouldn't be mutual. They simply don't have enough nukes to finish us off.

It doesn't have anything to do with nuclear weapons either.

At least not at the onset.

WHEN China attacks Taiwan will Bush have the balls to carry out our obligation to aid them?

It will be what we call conventional war and if iraq has taught us anything over the past three years, it is that we pretty much suck at conventional war, mostly due to ineffective and incompetent leadership.

Any one care to discuss the very real threat posed by the China / Tiawan situation or are you all just going to continue with the smoke n mirror distraction of Iran and NK, neither of which are now or will be a threat to the USA for many many years?

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

It will be what we call conventional war and if iraq has taught us anything over the past three years, it is that we pretty much suck at conventional war, mostly due to ineffective and incompetent leadership.

Awe, come on. It only took our army one month to sweep through Iraq. If anything, that proves that our army is better at conventional warfare than any in history. The only incompetent leaders during the invasion were Saddam and his subordinates. What you're perceiving as failure is the fighting that has occured since the end of the invasion, fighting that has been anything but conventional.

Originally Posted by theknife

so, with respect to Iran and North Korea, it's not that the policy of MAD won't work against them, it's that the policy of MAD won't work against us.

Preciesly. We could nuke them today and be done with them, but we'd have to be pretty unscrupulous to try it. The problem with having the biggest arsenal in the world is that there are always unscrupulous people in our government and we can't always count on human decency to keep them from pushing the button. The reason we make rules for ourselves is to prevent us from making things worse during periods of crisis, but where rules fail we must set traps for ourselves. Leaders in both the US and the USSR accelerated the arms race in order to set such a trap.

For the most part that trap has been defused, but there are still people who think that victory can be acheived in a nuclear battle, despite the inevitable cost of human casualties and collateral damage. The people whom MAD was meant to reign in are as much a threat to us as our enemies. It only takes one nuke to kill thousands of Americans, and we only have to launch one nuke at an enemy to provoke that kind of retaliation. So until we dismantle our arsenal we need Russia and even China to point their missiles at us.

Now we just need to make it clear to North Korea and especially Iran that we wouldn't hesitate to nuke them into oblivion, despite the reality that we wouldn't do such a thing. It's a paradox: we need MAD to prevent dangerous men from making bad decisions, but we need dangerous men that can make the kinds of threats that make MAD feasable. In other words, we need MAD men like Rumsfeld to keep madmen like Ahmadinejad in their place.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Because if we nuked them and they nuked us the distruction wouldn't be mutual. They simply don't have enough nukes to finish us off.

so, with respect to Iran and North Korea, it's not that the policy of MAD won't work against them, it's that the policy of MAD won't work against us.

Originally Posted by RDixon

Any one care to discuss the very real threat posed by the China / Tiawan situation or are you all just going to continue with the smoke n mirror distraction of Iran and NK, neither of which are now or will be a threat to the USA for many many years?

i don't see China as a military threat, Taiwan notwithstanding. we are well along a path of economic interdependence with the Chinese, as Sinner illustrates. that in itself is the strongest motivation for countries to figure out a way to coexist. i think they will be a very real economic threat in the future but everyone will find it is in thier best interest to work out the Taiwan situation. this is a good thing, because Bush & Co. do not have the balls or the will to face them down over Taiwan. that whole "freedom is on the march" thing is a soundbite designed to provide cover for establishing hegmony in the Middle East - we will cheerfully abide repression and tyranny wherever it is convenient and/or profitable to do so.