View Full Version : Chinese General Threatens To Use Nukes
Roguish Lawyer
07-14-2005, 16:13
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 14 2005 21:59
China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according to a senior Chinese military official.
“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.
Mr Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University, was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory includes warships and aircraft.
“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” Mr Zhu said. “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds. . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” Mr Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned previously that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.
Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”.
China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Mr Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.
Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.
“In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,” Mr Freeman quoted this official as saying. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.
The rationale for the new threats is unclear. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs could not be reached for comment.
Mr Zhu, who has risen from the rank of colonel over the past five years, insisted he was expressing his personal views, and that they did not represent the policy of the Chinese government. Nor was he anticipating war between China and the US.
But he said that, because China did not have the capability to fight a conventional war against the US, the threat to escalate might be the only way to stop a war.
His comments could provide insight into the thinking among some in the PLA amid growing anxiety in Washington about its capabilities. Last month, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, voiced concern about China's military build-up.
aricbcool
07-14-2005, 16:25
“In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,”
I'm sure that's what they're counting on.
I think they're probably right too.
--Aric
The Reaper
07-14-2005, 17:01
I think if they were to launch half of their nukes at us, and we were to launch half of ours at them, they would come out the worse for it.
TR
aricbcool
07-14-2005, 17:13
I think if they were to launch half of their nukes at us, and we were to launch half of ours at them, they would come out the worse for it.
TR
Do you think we would let it get that far?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for defending our allies. But if China carries this threat into policy, do you think Washington would still carry through with it's promise to defend Taiwan?
--Aric
Peregrino
07-14-2005, 17:30
Do you think we would let it get that far?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for defending our allies. But if China carries this threat into policy, do you think Washington would still carry through with it's promise to defend Taiwan?
--Aric
I think the Chinese would do it. They regularly use guys like this to sound out their policy to the rest of the world. It'll be interesting to observe Washington's reaction. Also interesting to note - I haven't seen it in the mainstream media yet. TR has a legit point but our nuclear arsenal has suffered treaty and budget problems that the Chinese don't have. (A lot of open source stuff that can be cross checked.) We don't have an overpowering throw weight advantage like we used to. Advantages we had in precision guidance and efficiency, Clinton gave away. On the bright side - maybe we can get the congresscritters that have been fighting the SDI to volunteer themselves as hunan shields (pun intended). Just some thinking on what could be an interesting threat. Peregrino
FWIW, the system is called Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) now, rather than SDI.
ghuinness
07-14-2005, 18:35
This rhetoric sounds very familiar. Didn't they say the same thing in 1997?
I can't find the quote, but I know it had something to do with dropping a nuke on LA.
It seems it was not long ago we had a prolonged discussion on the global economy and how capitalism would move China towards democracy. It appears someone needs to inform the Chinese as their strategic plans and military build up flys in the face of this theory. In light of their attempt to purchase Unocal which must be a part of their overall plan to acquire strategic resources, their recent purchase of missles which are specifically designed to attack aircraft carriers and the rhetoric mentioned above, I am wondering if our continued purchasing of goods made in China and entering into these strategic business arrangement with Chinese companies is not a major mistake.
In light of their attempt to purchase Unocal which must be a part of their overall plan to acquire strategic resources, their recent purchase of missles which are specifically designed to attack aircraft carriers and the rhetoric mentioned above, I am wondering if our continued purchasing of goods made in China and entering into these strategic business arrangement with Chinese companies is not a major mistake.
Unocal (http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-07-15T180210Z_01_N15144838_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-ENERGY-UNOCAL-CONGRESS-DC.XML)
So we are not allowed to own ANY of their energy companies, and specifically not allowed to own even a part of a Chinese oil company, but they can own one of our largest oil companies? Hopefully congress stops this dead in its tracks.
These Chinese are blatant in thier willingness to take over the role of numero uno. Nothing wrong with that, turnaround is fair play. But when they use our own laws and institutions against us without following the same rules then something is terribly wrong.
They don't follow the same rules we do in terms of yen vs. dollar, they manipulate their economy to lower their deficit and raise ours, and now they are threatening nukes in the press.
We should boycott Walmart.
Roguish Lawyer
07-15-2005, 13:08
We should boycott Walmart.
:confused:
:confused:
LOL.
Wal-Mart is China’s Eighth Largest Trading Partner. One company, ahead of Russia and Germany!
Figures vary about how much Wal-Mart purchases from China, and Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott has evaded fully answering that question, but is it widely estimated by scholars and journalists that Wal-Mart is China’s eighth largest trading partner. [Scott Interview, ABC “Good Morning America,” 1/13/05; PBS Frontline, 2004; CBS, 12/14/03; New York Times, 4/17/04; US News & World Report, 9/15/03]
8th largest trading partner (http://walmartwatch.com/home/pages/that_was_then_this_is_now)
Wal-Mart is the single largest importer of foreign-produced goods in the United States, and the majority of its private-label clothing is manufactured in at least 48 countries around the world—and almost none in the United States.
AFL-CIO (http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/walmart/walmart_5.cfm)
I guess the point is this: Maybe not a boycott of Walmart. How about higher taxes on goods coming from China?
...and the majority of its private-label clothing is manufactured in at least 48 countries around the world—and almost none in the United States.
"Always Low Prices. Always." goes out the window otherwise. Some alarming statistics on the AFL-CIO link, but the unions have been unsuccessfully trying to organize Wal-Mart's Associates for years.
"Always Low Prices. Always." goes out the window otherwise.
To tell the honest truth, I'd pay more for "Made in USA". I search for goods/products made here for purchase whenever I can.
I don't trust China as far as I can throw them...and that isn't far. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat but I don't like this situation with Unocal at all.
The Reaper
07-15-2005, 14:54
To tell the honest truth, I'd pay more for "Made in USA". I search for goods/products made here for purchase whenever I can.
I don't trust China as far as I can throw them...and that isn't far. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat but I don't like this situation with Unocal at all.
WalMart tried that and not enough of our countrymen agreed with us. Then the went to China and dropped prices.
I think the issue is that most people will pay a little more for American, but not enough to make up the difference between slave labor/.10 cents per hour and $25 per hour union wages.
TR
From:
http://www.ufcw.org/issues_and_actions/walmart_workers_campaign_info/facts_and_figures/walmartwages.cfm
Wal-Mart Wages
Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four.
The most common Wal-Mart jobs earn less.
A sales associate--the most common job classification--earns on average $8.23 per hour ($13,861 annually)
A cashier—the second most common job—earns about $7.92 per hour ($11,948 annually)
Sales associates and cashiers combined account for more than a third of all Wal-Mart jobs.
The world’s largest and richest retailer—with more than $250 billion in annual revenue--can afford wage increases. Wal-Mart could pay each employee a dollar more per hour if the company increased its prices by a half-penny per dollar. For example, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee.
A Wal-Mart spokesperson told USA Today on 1/29/03 that their pay is close to or equal to union wages.
Union Wages
Grocery workers are paid an average of $10.61/hour based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) reported in 2002 that United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Union-represented workers in the supermarket industry earned 31% more than their non-union counterparts. Women have a 33% advantage with UFCW representation.
IWPR research showed that UFCW-represented supermarket workers are two-and-a half times as likely to have pension coverage than non-union workers and twice as likely to have health insurance coverage than retail food workers without union representation.
The excerpt below is from the June 11, 2003 Wall Street Journal--New Recipe for Cost Savings: Replace Highly Paid Workers; In a Tight Market, Employers Are Finding Job Seekers Willing to Take Lower Salaries
FWIW
Books
The Reaper
07-15-2005, 15:19
Well, now there is an unbiased source with no agenda. :rolleyes:
Wonder what their take is on collection of union dues, and then redistributing them for political causes against the worker's desires?
TR
Bill Harsey
07-15-2005, 15:27
Manufacturing goods in China for the United States market, in the volumes now being imported into our country, is a new form of treason.
The range is now open on this knifemaker.
Roguish Lawyer
07-15-2005, 15:32
Manufacturing goods in China for the United States market, in the volumes now being imported into our country, is a new form of treason.
Why?
Roguish Lawyer
07-15-2005, 15:34
If people don't like the wages at Wal-Mart, they don't have to work there. I am surprised to see so many commies on this board. :eek:
The Reaper
07-15-2005, 15:39
I always saw cashiers and sales associates as entry level positions, kind of like the fry cook at McDonald's.
How many people take those jobs with the intent of making a career out of that position?
I agree that we may need to look at some restructuring of tariffs to prevent dumping.
TR
I always saw cashiers and sales associates as entry level positions, kind of like the fry cook at McDonald's.
How many people take those jobs with the intent of making a career out of that position?
I agree that we may need to look at some restructuring of tariffs to prevent dumping.
TR
TR,
The US already has some of the most aggressive anti-dumping laws in the world, and foreign producers rarely come out ahead in anti-dumping disputes (less than 15% of the time when I last checked). What is it that you're concerned is being dumped? :munchin
Bill Harsey
07-15-2005, 15:55
The United States population "pays" China to produce all our stuff, this builds Chinas economy that China in turn uses to build it's military to threaten us with.
Is this over simple "knifemakers math"?
We are growing China by teaching them to do what we used to do ourselves.
If we export all our manufacturing jobs to China this causes some very long term problems for our security.
First, we get lazy and no longer want to "do the hard work" ourselves. OK, maybe we already got there...
We lose the tradition of being able to "make stuff'. Machinists, engineers, designers, mechanics, assembly line workers, etc. are losing tens of thousands of jobs because they have already been exported to China.
This ends the tradition of doing that kind of work here and if we need them tommorrow, they simply aren't there.
Real world example, What happens when we need to quickly increase manufacturing of something as relatively simple as armored Humvees?
Can't do it fast enough because we've lost the manufacturing capacity.
Any Ivory Tower boys who disagree need to spend some more time at dirt level to see what's going on.
If China knows it controls our economy by it's production of our goods, that is a serious exposure.
Much of the new industrial manufacturing technology provided to China by the United States can also be used to build a military.
Roguish Lawyer
07-15-2005, 16:04
Any Ivory Tower boys who disagree need to spend some more time at dirt level to see what's going on.
Sir, are you talking to me? LMAO
Bill Harsey
07-15-2005, 16:09
Sir, are you talking to me? LMAO
That comment was in case we got anyone from academia joing us here later as a guest.
No way would I insult any of the esteemed members of Professional Soldiers.com
Roguish Lawyer
07-15-2005, 16:11
You make a valid point, but use of the word "treason" is hyperbolic.
Perhaps Greenhat will join this discussion . . . :munchin
AL? :munchin
Roguish Lawyer
07-15-2005, 16:11
IIRC, NDD says that China is not a threat to us. :munchin
FWIW, I talked to a Professor of Economics at our local college a few weeks back. During our conversation we came up on the subject of China. He has been teaching "economics" for 40 years now and told me that if China wanted to destroy us or provoke a pre-emptive strike, they wouldn't need to do anything other than stop shipping goods to the US for a period of 1-2 months. He stated that our economy would collapse within days after the refusal to ship out goods, forcing us to do something very drastic and quickly.
Words for thought?
The Reaper
07-15-2005, 16:37
Might hurt retail sales, but I can get by without buying anything be food and gas for a while.
What would it do to them to lose all of that money, and either have half of their population unemployed, or every warehouse in the country full?
Inflationary as hell here till US manufacturers got back on line again.
I think that sword cuts them more than us.
TR
forcing us to do something very drastic and quickly.
Just curious, but can you provide a for instance?
Bill Harsey
07-15-2005, 17:14
You make a valid point, but use of the word "treason" is hyperbolic.
Perhaps Greenhat will join this discussion . . . :munchin
AL? :munchin
When I say treason, I mean in a convulated slow motion kind of way, kind of like the word hyperbolic? JEEEEEEEEEEEZ That's a Frontsight class word.
Who controls the resources controls the world.
Anyone noticing how a lot of that is headed towards China?
Cement prices are through the roof here because of China, steel goes without saying...how do you build military stuff without steel?
You also can't make steel without certain fuels. So much of the worlds mineral resources are being directed to China that I think this is also a tactical concern.
You don't build good gun barrels without certain alloys, many of which do not exist here in the United States and we are having a tough time getting them because these same alloys are going to China.
This is where I live, so to speak. My information on steels comes directly from the captains of the industry.
If people don't like the wages at Wal-Mart, they don't have to work there. I am surprised to see so many commies on this board. :eek:
With due respect RL, I don't think it has anything to do with communism. Walmart's business tactics are well known. The Corp. moves into small community, runs the local butcher, baker, candlestick maker out of business and replaces those jobs with lower wage ones. As for folks walking away from low wage jobs. . . often they don't have much choice - they're the only jobs in town. A hell of an incentive, IMO, to get an education.
Economic environments function much like biological ones do: the greater the diversity of species, the stronger and more resistent the environment is to disease and attack. Walmart is the economic equivalent of scotchbroom, a plant that sucks the nutrients from the soil, displaces native species and puts little back into the turf.
We need more companies, not bigger ones. Heads up too, Filson, the hunting/fishing/ranching outfitter is about to start making some products overseas. A sad day for American companies.
Books
The Reaper
07-15-2005, 17:43
Cement prices are through the roof here because of China, steel goes without saying...how do you build military stuff without steel?
You also can't make steel without certain fuels. So much of the worlds mineral resources are being directed to China that I think this is also a tactical concern.
You don't build good gun barrels without certain alloys, many of which do not exist here in the United States and we are having a tough time getting them because these same alloys are going to China.
This is where I live, so to speak. My information on steels comes directly from the captains of the industry.
Bill:
I don't fully buy that.
It is a capitalist marketplace.
You want my Vanadium, offer more for it. You want all of the cement I can produce, pay me more money.
While it is inflationary and may cause spot shortages, the reason someone doesn't have something usually is that they are not willing (or able) to pay more for it.
TR
The Reaper
07-15-2005, 17:45
With due respect RL, I don't think it has anything to do with communism. Walmart's business tactics are well known. The Corp. moves into small community, runs the local butcher, baker, candlestick maker out of business and replaces those jobs with lower wage ones. As for folks walking away from low wage jobs. . . often they don't have much choice - they're the only jobs in town. A hell of an incentive, IMO, to get an education.
Economic environments function much like biological ones do: the greater the diversity of species, the stronger and more resistent the environment is to disease and attack. Walmart is the economic equivalent of scotchbroom, a plant that sucks the nutrients from the soil, displaces native species and puts little back into the turf.
We need more companies, not bigger ones. Heads up too, Filson, the hunting/fishing/ranching outfitter is about to start making some products overseas. A sad day for American companies.
Books
Books:
Last time I checked, the cashiers at the Mom and Pop butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers made minimum wage there too, unless they were the owners or the family of the owners. Have you seen a lot of people getting rich working the 7/11 counter?
TR
It is a capitalist marketplace.
I always felt that way, but China is not playing by the same rules as the rest of the marketplace, and they are making up economic rules that are good for them and bad for the rest.
I am all for a capitalistic society, but it should be a two-way street. They buy everyone elses resources but we cannot buy theirs?
The Reaper
07-15-2005, 17:53
I always felt that way, but China is not playing by the same rules as the rest of the marketplace, and they are making up economic rules that are good for them and bad for the rest.
I am all for a capitalistic society, but it should be a two-way street. They buy everyone elses resources but we cannot buy theirs?
Get $700 Billion together and tell me what you cannot buy from them.
TR
aricbcool
07-15-2005, 17:57
Books:
Last time I checked, the cashiers at the Mom and Pop butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers made minimum wage there too, unless they were the owners or the family of the owners. Have you seen a lot of people getting rich working the 7/11 counter?
TR
Exactly.
To add to that: Where I am, Wal-Mart starts workers above minimum wage. Compared to Target, Shopko and K-Mart, Wal-Mart is quite generous.
And, they have greeters (usually seniors or handicapped that likely wouldn't find work elsewhere). I have yet to see a greeter in any of the other stores.
Also, not to hijack, but:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2005/07/15/afx2141431.html
US calls Chinese general's nuclear threat 'irresponsible'
WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US shrugged off as 'irresponsible' a reported threat by a Chinese general to use nuclear weapons if attacked by the US in a conflict over Taiwan.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called the remarks attributed to General Zhu Chenghu 'unfortunate' and said he hoped they did not reflect the views of the Chinese government.
'I haven't seen all the remarks but what I've seen of them, I'll say that they're irresponsible,' McCormack told reporters.
The Financial Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal on Friday quoted Zhu, a professor at China's National Defence University, as issuing the threat at a briefing organised by a private Hong Kong organisation.
Books:
Last time I checked, the cashiers at the Mom and Pop butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers made minimum wage there too, unless they were the owners or the family of the owners. Have you seen a lot of people getting rich working the 7/11 counter?
TR
Fair enough TR, you're keeping me honest. Cashiers make what cashiers make (unless they're lucky enough to have a union gig). Then they make a living wage.
But the presence of the mom & pop shops shows a greater diversity in the "econosphere." Hopefully I won't be stoned to death for my birkenstock metaphor. More mom and pops means a larger share of the society are owners, rather than proles. People don't get rich from working at 7/11. They get rich from owning a 7/11.
So yeah, I'm pro-labor (it got us the weekend; can't be that bad) AND pro business. What I'm against are hegemonic corporations squishing the little guy. If Costco can manage to pay their employees a decent wage and be a good neigbhor in their communities while still being a publicly traded company, why can't Walmart?
aricbcool
07-15-2005, 18:06
If Costco can manage to pay their employees a decent wage and be a good neigbhor in their communities while still being a publicly traded company, why can't Walmart?
They could, if they wanted to charge all of their customers a $60 annual membership fee. :D
TR,
I believe you might be right in some aspects. However, I think their "resolve" would be much stronger than ours. We want things "now" and as fast as possible. They on the other hand, have been subjected to poverty and living virtually on nothing for so long, I would think that the whole situation would be just another trial for them. Also, remember on top of being blinded by Communism doctrine their faith would be in themselves and in their leaders. Ours hopefully would lie in the Church and the government, and each other as well. When the goods start getting really thin, especially in the stores, people in this country will more than likely panic which would lead to "panic" buying. Food would not be a problem unless parts weren't available to fix the machines that harvest and/or transport. It would be IMO, a back to the basics not unlike the days we had seen here during WWII. This until the "storm" passes.
Drastic measures would probably be in the form of UN sanctions against China itself and we all know what that means. This would however, be an opportune time to find out who really are our friends and who isn't (like we didn't know this one ahead of time). I imagine negoitiations about Taiwan would be thrown in for good measure. Let me digress a little; The situation with Taiwan would be the cause of this. With George in the white house, he will not sit on his hands wondering what to do next. His answer would be "NO" to China having Taiwan (by the way, they are one of the largest Chrisitan countrys in the world). What's next would be anybodys guess. Maybe a "Cuban Missle Crisis" standoff.
Bill Harsey
07-15-2005, 20:35
Bill:
I don't fully buy that.
It is a capitalist marketplace.
You want my Vanadium, offer more for it. You want all of the cement I can produce, pay me more money.
While it is inflationary and may cause spot shortages, the reason someone doesn't have something usually is that they are not willing (or able) to pay more for it.
TR
If you buy all of it first and there is no more left, there is no need to worry about the competition.
If you have to pay a living wage to your employees, then you will always have some, if not great, difficulty competing.
The Reaper
07-15-2005, 20:47
If you buy all of it first and there is no more left, there is no need to worry about the competition.
If you have to pay a living wage to your employees, then you will always have some, if not great, difficulty competing.
Bill:
This strikes me like the argument that we will run out of oil.
We will never run out. It will just get so expensive to produce that the alternatives will be preferred.
How do you acquire every bit of a substance which occurs on the Earth naturally? If the price is high enough, there is an incentive to explore, and more will be discovered or old, less profitable mines will be opened back up. Happens with precious metals all of the time. There is an aluminum smelter near here that is only efficient to operate if the market price for aluminum is $100 per ton or so, IIRC. Goes to $90, they mothball it. Goes up to $110, they bring it back online.
Even DeBeers cannot keep complete control of the diamond market. Some still get out of their network. You can buy diamonds all day long, if you are willing to pay their price.
Not arguing the wage issue, though I do know some people who could probably live just fine with a .22, a knife, a flint, and a wad of 550 cord.
As the Chinese people get more news from outside, more affluent, bigger consumers, etc., it will get harder to keep them down as well.
Look at what happened to Japan.
TR
What would it do to them to lose all of that money, and either have half of their population unemployed, or every warehouse in the country full?
.....
I think that sword cuts them more than us.
TR
I agree. One of the reasons China is resistant to revaluing the yuan is to keep their export machine humming to provide jobs for the masses flooding the cities from the villages. The regime does not want to deal with angry, unemployed peasants.
frostfire
07-15-2005, 21:48
As the Chinese people get more news from outside, more affluent, bigger consumers, etc., it will get harder to keep them down as well.
Look at what happened to Japan.
TRExcellent observation! This is one topic I pay close attention to everyday and I have missed this potential analysis. Maybe it's because I have strong bias towards the Chinese hard (sometime insane) work ethics. Go to any major uni in the US and see how many long hours/how hard the Chinese grad students work while being compensated at a payrate that will cause Joe frat boy to cuss every 5 min.
The consumerism in Tokyo probably beat Manhattan. Back in the academic days, several alumni came to intro class to show what they did then. They worked for a major cosmetic company devising the latest gadget to apply smooth and even base make up. It's ridiculously pricey and guess where they tested it first for marketability? Tokyo....and it was sold out in two weeks.
I agree that at some point the folks in China may reach that same level. But how long and and what will become of the US by then?
Cement prices are through the roof here because of China, steel goes without saying......this sounds familiar from a brief conversation during BLADE show :munchin
Bill Harsey
07-16-2005, 07:57
If all the perceived problems with China get worse, just pipe in MTV.
Then we'll have to get back to work making all our own stuff again.
Ambush Master
07-16-2005, 08:38
Who controls the resources controls the world.
Anyone noticing how a lot of that is headed towards China?
Cement prices are through the roof here because of China, steel goes without saying...how do you build military stuff without steel?
You also can't make steel without certain fuels. So much of the worlds mineral resources are being directed to China that I think this is also a tactical concern.
You don't build good gun barrels without certain alloys, many of which do not exist here in the United States and we are having a tough time getting them because these same alloys are going to China.
This is where I live, so to speak. My information on steels comes directly from the captains of the industry.
Bill, I don't think that the steel is going into their War Machinery !! Not now anyway, because it is going both into the concrete and into the machinery that is needed to prep for the concrete !!
See: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/three.gorges/
It seems to me that we are failing to make a distinction between a capitalism model which we use inside our borders and a model which applies to international community. I believe most of the folks on this site are for capitalism. However, I believe the issues are a little murky when you get into the international market. For instance, when international capitalism and national security conflict, what are the rules?
The Chinese company which is attempting to purchase Unocal is owned mostly by a fear based communist government and is financing the purchase with government interest free loans, I believe our pure capitalism model breaks down. I do not believe questioning this transaction labels one a communist. Am I the only one who sees the irony here? A communist government is trying to purchase Unocal.
In order for the capitalism model to work, the playing field has to be level, and it is not in this situation. We cannot purchase stock in this acquiring company, but they can purchase Unocal. How is that capitalism?
We are currently in a deadly battle with this controlling and communist government over oil. I do not believe it is a pure capitalism argument. The question that still remains unanswered is: when international capitalism and national security conflict, what are the rules? I say national security trumps the capitalism argument, especially when dealing with a entity controlled by a communist government.
D9 (RIP)
07-17-2005, 13:14
All the points I would make in this discussion have been well covered by TR, but just to tease out one point he hit on a little further.
A few weeks ago, shortly after the announcement of the aborted Unocal deal, the Wall Street Journal featured a profile of the Chinese quasi-company involved. The great irony was that the management of this company has a very profit-oriented, capitalisitic business model. It's internal policies were meritocractic, with efficiency and profitability as the number one goals and competition encouraged within the ranks. This, IMHO, is a microcosm of a bigger, internal problem that seriously threatens China as it emerges into economic prominence. Namely, that while the handful of nominally-communistic militant thugs that run that country want to become the pre-eminent bully in the region, to get there they have to tolerate and even foster the kind of ideas in their citizenry that are the greatest threat to their government cum racket.
In every dictatorship in recent history - Nazi Germany, Sov Union, China, Cambodia, Taliban Afghanistan, et al - the foremost concern of these tyrants (be they individual or by committee) is the supression of ideas that are incompatible with the culture of fear that give plausibility to their repressive undertakings. The fortunate irony for these power-lusting dictatorships, is that the same ideas that so threaten them are the very ones that are necessary for them to become powerful. And so I expect it to be in China, that they have a choice to make: 1) maintain their solid hold on their population, crushing dissent - they will have to maintain this if they intend to steer China towards a conflagration with the United States, or 2) pursue a path of economic success and material happiness, and accept with it the culture that will make using all that wealth for militaristic adventures dangerous on the homefront.
China is right now telling its people that a new era has dawned, when their own happiness and prosperity can become the new cultural standard (if this article can be believed, or anything can be generalized from it). Once you let people get used to the idea that they are making for themselves, you make it much harder on yourself in the future to enlist all their hard earned wealth in destructive power grabs.
Either way, it's a dangerous and unpredictable future with China. They are building a Navy, for instance, that many experts believe is intended to challenge us for control of the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans. Just pointing out that their path is frought with its own obstacles.
Roguish Lawyer
07-17-2005, 19:01
Either way, it's a dangerous and unpredictable future with China. They are building a Navy, for instance, that many experts believe is intended to challenge us for control of the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans.
I'm sure the Navy is relieved. :D
I think the Chinese would do it. They regularly use guys like this to sound out their policy to the rest of the world. It'll be interesting to observe Washington's reaction. Also interesting to note - I haven't seen it in the mainstream media yet. TR has a legit point but our nuclear arsenal has suffered treaty and budget problems that the Chinese don't have. (A lot of open source stuff that can be cross checked.) We don't have an overpowering throw weight advantage like we used to. Advantages we had in precision guidance and efficiency, Clinton gave away. On the bright side - maybe we can get the congresscritters that have been fighting the SDI to volunteer themselves as hunan shields (pun intended). Just some thinking on what could be an interesting threat. Peregrino
I guess this is where our 3-stage missile defense system needs to come close to perfection. Although, one thing working in our favor is that ever since China opened it's markets 15+ years ago, there is more and more western influence. More and more of a movement towards democracy. The more they see how well we are flourishing over here, the more the people in China want our way of life. The end result is they realize communism doesn't work.
Taiwan is somewhat a planted seed to spread democracy in that region. A little speck against the "Iron Curtain" or the "Bambo Curtain" as some may call it.
Joe
What concrete evidence have you seen that the Chinese government is moving towards democracy? I believe we are mixing apples with oranges and confusing entering the free market system and with establishing a democracy.
What concrete evidence have you seen that the Chinese government is moving towards democracy? I believe we are mixing apples with oranges and confusing entering the free market system and with establishing a democracy.
There are more and more pro-democry protests taking place. More college students demonstrating, and a huge outcry in Hong Kong over policy implemented by the communists.
We still must maintain our presense and infuence though.
I think the previous posts about confusing democracy with the market economy is correct.
Even more is confusing the goal of the communists in getting enough funds to return China to a status of world power and their ability to keep control over the economy and finances of the country through a "market economy" to allow the Chinese government to reap the benefits. This is a PLANNED STRATEGY of control and careful strengthening of the Government and more particularly the Chinese Armed Forces.
China has made a lot of statements about their future in the world and the underlying message is that we are going to be a major world power in every way in the future: economically, politically and militarily. The way the world really works is that you must have economic power before anything else, then you follow that with political and finally military.
Chinese strategy is working and has been working for decades. They are showing a lot of skill in hiding behind the mask while the hands are at work behind the back. Most people are just concentrating on the mask of commercial opportunity.
The reality of companies doing business INSIDE China is a lot different than people would like to publicly admit. Most are not making that much money and a lot of western companies has lost a ton of money. In most cases they find Chinese factories (usually their "partners") ripping off their designs and technology and selling out the back door. What China wants is the technology and know-how, and of course jobs so that they don't have a revolution with jobless workers.
The balance is delicate as they "allow" the west to enter, steal the technology and then upgrade their own defense systems to try to equal the west.
In the long run the Chinese will be the biggest threat the west has ever faced.
Bill Harsey
02-01-2006, 10:58
rwt_bkk,
Much truth to your words.
There are many problems with production of US goods in China including Chinas complete and total lack of respect for intellectual property rights (copyright, patent and trademark for other knifemakers reading here) which makes up the corner stone upon which our ability to do business as a free people is based.
I imagine the type of communism practiced in china is much different than the communism practiced in the past. So much different, that I think it borders on nationalism. Wikipedia defines nationalism in part as : "Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the nation, ethnicity or national identity is a "fundamental unit" of human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state"
Websters says: "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"
I understand Chiang Kai-shek was the head of the defeated Chinese Nationalists. But I wonder if his form of Nationalism actually fit these defenitions above.
China was a world power long before Europe, and is a very old society. They know their history as the dominant power of asia. I am wondering if we are witnessing the transition from communism to nationalism in china today, I don't think they are a free market economy like the west, but they certainly aren't complete communists either. There is a purpose to, or a goal for the ecomomic strategy they practice. I think its a goal that is well defined by nationalism. I agree that they seek ecomomic prominence, if they havn't acheived that already. The next steps of political and military prominence make sense to me.
I don't see the United States taking actions to stop China from acheiving its goals. So I guess I would like to ask all of you, what would the world be like with an economic, politcal, and military giant china? The US is becoming more like Australia in that we don't produce much anymore.
I wouldn't say China was a world power before Europe.
Hey, guys, just a reminder from your resident economist. Nations don't trade. Businesses trade. Usually in an effort to keep up with your demand.
Don't expect Uncle Sam to wade in and save you in a fight that you should have won at work.
China is evil, period.
Remember that the next time you go to Walmart or Home Depot and buy the crap on the shelves made in China...
China is evil or the Chinese government is evil?
They're not one and the same.