First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Ominous Activities in China
793 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

There is plenty of reason. It's like a game of chicken. We're all bluffing are butts off to keep from a nuclear war. Most nations don't intend to use their nukes except to retaliate on a nuclear attack against them...



I agree there is a reasons for having them, but the amount some countries have is just a bit ridiculous. The US alone claims to have over 5000 nukes. Why does one country need 5000 nukes? Anyways, with the rate china is expanding they will eventually get themselves some nukes, as will other countries, with or without the UN permission.
4473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Mexico
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
I dont think China is going to do anything. I mean its like saying that the US is planing a wwIII because their military budget is like huge. and well we all know its not xD
Why cant there be world peace!!!!
3928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Jersey
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

notruthinaworldoflies wrote:
I agree there is a reasons for having them, but the amount some countries have is just a bit ridiculous. The US alone claims to have over 5000 nukes. Why does one country need 5000 nukes? Anyways, with the rate china is expanding they will eventually get themselves some nukes, as will other countries, with or without the UN permission.


To promote the economy. They make 5000 nukes and that means another couple hundred jobs (give or take) that stimulates the economy. Building weapons and funding the military are always used to help boost the economy.
3021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Insert Semi-Cleve...
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
ok, good topic seraph...and these are just my general opinions btw. first up just want to say google is a joke, they were once great anti-censorship advocates...look at them now kissing China's butt...principle over access to the Chinese market...ouch.

second, India, Brazil, China and the European Union are well on the way to Super-powerhood. well according to political and economic analysts anyway...Multilateralism = Good Thing, the US hegemony is going to end sooner or later, probably later, but it will.

third...what are they doing focusing on military technology? if they're thinking about long term, think desertification. the Gobi desert's expanding too quickly and the water scarcity issue, plus the pollution...

No worries about the oil too. China's been investing heavily in Africa. even investing in places America hasnt reached yet. not only that they've been increasing amiable relations with african countries by increasing loans and credits and foreign aid...

is China sustainable though? what's to say that it wont end up like the USSR in the next 10 years or so? they're already learning from the mistakes and successes of the Russian Comm. model. only they're taking slower, not forcing it like Gorbachev did. Perestroika (economic reforms) seems to be what they're after at the moment. so maybe Glasnost (transparency reform) won't be too far behind...yes they're pretty opaque now but that's not sustainable.

World War III? it could happen but as everyone seems to think no-one really wants to be the one to first use the nukes. they're basically just trip wires, like the US german occupation during the Cold War. imo every state of a certain level of development want absolute security. Nukes = Insecurity, mutually assured destruction. over what? the way i see it, the economic market is really what's important at this day and age. but then again it is always in someone best interest to promote fear, real or imagined...

ooohhh, sorry off topic but i just got to comment, imo WWI was not about imperialism at all, its more about the rampant nationalism in Europe plus the under the table alliances and treaties plus expansionism (within Europe itself).

14434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Moving around or...
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

rhynny wrote:

ok, good topic seraph...and these are just my general opinions btw. first up just want to say google is a joke, they were once great anti-censorship advocates...look at them now kissing China's butt...principle over access to the Chinese market...ouch.

second, India, Brazil, China and the European Union are well on the way to Super-powerhood. well according to political and economic analysts anyway...Multilateralism = Good Thing, the US hegemony is going to end sooner or later, probably later, but it will.

third...what are they doing focusing on military technology? if they're thinking about long term, think desertification. the Gobi desert's expanding too quickly and the water scarcity issue, plus the pollution...

No worries about the oil too. China's been investing heavily in Africa. even investing in places America hasnt reached yet. not only that they've been increasing amiable relations with african countries by increasing loans and credits and foreign aid...

is China sustainable though? what's to say that it wont end up like the USSR in the next 10 years or so? they're already learning from the mistakes and successes of the Russian Comm. model. only they're taking slower, not forcing it like Gorbachev did. Perestroika (economic reforms) seems to be what they're after at the moment. so maybe Glasnost (transparency reform) won't be too far behind...yes they're pretty opaque now but that's not sustainable.

World War III? it could happen but as everyone seems to think no-one really wants to be the one to first use the nukes. they're basically just trip wires, like the US german occupation during the Cold War. imo every state of a certain level of development want absolute security. Nukes = Insecurity, mutually assured destruction. over what? the way i see it, the economic market is really what's important at this day and age. but then again it is always in someone best interest to promote fear, real or imagined...



NO ONE USES NUKES, those are just to kill aliens if they ever attack, if a country uses nukes all the other countries will gang on em, only Kim Jong is crazy enough to do it and of course some middle easterners, China's pollution stuff n stuff like that are all getting better the US just tries to make a big deal out of



3928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Jersey
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
^ Not true about the pollution stuff. Since China has been developing so quickly, there has been a recent boost in pollution as well. China has only recently gotten better in their care for the environment, but has yet to prove to have any fruitful effects as of yet. They are only starting to build more cleaner nuclear factories, hydroelectric dams, etc. They are still very behind on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution#China

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_prc.htm

According to reported energy statistics, coal production in China has returned to levels characteristic of mid 1990s levels. As a result, Chinese fossil-fuel CO2 emissions reached an all-time high of 1131 million metric tons of carbon in 2003. Even with the decline in Chines emissions from 1996 to 2000, China's industrial emissions of CO2 have grown phenomenally since 1950, when China stood tenth among nations based on annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions.
6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
China's pollution is actually getting worse. Way worse. Its been predicted that in 10 years are so, China's green house gas emissions will exceed that of the US. China burns so much coal per year its actually blackens the sky.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
Well, first off people… Didn’t America drop some kind of atom bomb in WWII? If we’d use a weapon of mass destruction then who’s to say that we might not do it again in the future? We could probably cover it up pretty good too. Maybe even make it look like we had nothing to do with it… Still, I think it’s very unlikely. Well, I think that America has all her nukes for the same reason everyone else does. Because mutual fear is the only way to keep peace. America may win a nuclear war, however, would they be willing to make the mass scale sacrifices that would be required to win the war? It’s like when I was little. I went out and got into a fight with another little boy. Because I hit puberty in like.. 2nd grade I pulverized him. However, I was punished for it. In the end I realized that the only thing I earned was a brief moment of satisfaction. I got suspended and my parents beat me for it. I lost more than I gained. Even though he lost more than me, cuz he got the same treatments plus the beating, it still wasn’t worth it from my point of view.

I also think that China, and most other nations, do have some nuclear strike capabilities that they keep secret. Some are obviously too poverty blighted to afford any such thing, but I don’t think China is amongst them. Then again I did find a web-page that said some parts of China were so economically weak that they feasted on pickled baby corpses… However, I think the key-note to China is the poverty of her people, not her self as an entity or nation. I wouldn’t be unwilling to see fault in this, however. As mentioned before I’ve only studied their recent economical and martial activities in depth, not their culture, living conditions, media, or the likes. I’ve only briefly researched those last ones…




rhynny wrote:

ok, good topic seraph...and these are just my general opinions btw. first up just want to say google is a joke, they were once great anti-censorship advocates...look at them now kissing China's butt...principle over access to the Chinese market...ouch.

second, India, Brazil, China and the European Union are well on the way to Super-powerhood. well according to political and economic analysts anyway...Multilateralism = Good Thing, the US hegemony is going to end sooner or later, probably later, but it will.

third...what are they doing focusing on military technology? if they're thinking about long term, think desertification. the Gobi desert's expanding too quickly and the water scarcity issue, plus the pollution...

No worries about the oil too. China's been investing heavily in Africa. even investing in places America hasnt reached yet. not only that they've been increasing amiable relations with african countries by increasing loans and credits and foreign aid...

is China sustainable though? what's to say that it wont end up like the USSR in the next 10 years or so? they're already learning from the mistakes and successes of the Russian Comm. model. only they're taking slower, not forcing it like Gorbachev did. Perestroika (economic reforms) seems to be what they're after at the moment. so maybe Glasnost (transparency reform) won't be too far behind...yes they're pretty opaque now but that's not sustainable.

World War III? it could happen but as everyone seems to think no-one really wants to be the one to first use the nukes. they're basically just trip wires, like the US german occupation during the Cold War. imo every state of a certain level of development want absolute security. Nukes = Insecurity, mutually assured destruction. over what? the way i see it, the economic market is really what's important at this day and age. but then again it is always in someone best interest to promote fear, real or imagined...

ooohhh, sorry off topic but i just got to comment, imo WWI was not about imperialism at all, its more about the rampant nationalism in Europe plus the under the table alliances and treaties plus expansionism (within Europe itself).



I got a bit confused on this part: “third...what are they doing focusing on military technology? if they're thinking about long term, think desertification. the Gobi desert's expanding too quickly and the water scarcity issue, plus the pollution…” Could you re-explain that to me? Sorry.

Well, I think that China can easily sustain their current growth for many more generations. Why? From what I know of the general Chinese citizen they have a very loyal ethos that reigns between them. China is breeding their people to be supremely and blindly loyal patriots. Even when people do rise up their immediately struck down. This being said, if for no other reason than force, China will have it’s people’s support no matter what situation they find themselves in. That’s a lot of people backing up their cause. You’d be surprised how well you can hold onto a hopeless campaign with servile myriads of puppet legions. Look at The Peloponnesian War of Hellas, (ancient Greece.) The Spartans had the best soldiers in the ancient world, but they were spread too thin and lacked maritime forces necessary to compete with Athens. As a result they quickly became the underdogs of the war, and were on the loosing team when the first phase of it ended. However, come the second round, the began to ignore their usually adamant ideology that encouraged their obstinate use of Spartiate hoplites alone in battle. They began to use their helots as lightly armed infantry troops, and I credit this to be one of the major keys to their end victory over Athens. (That and of course the plague and a few other things, namely Athens’ attempt to force various poleis into their empire through tyranny, something greatly frowned upon by the Hellenes.)

They may be growing quickly, and some may say too quickly to sustain themselves. I, however, disagree. You used nature as an example, but I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. A government is very different from an ecosystem. When I was a youngster I once shut down my father’s work lap-top while it was in the middle of downloading something. It crashed the thing somehow or another. Clearly I didn’t understand. He tried to explain it in a way that my 8 year old mind could comprehend. His method for doing this was to try and compare the computer to my head, but this was a hard goal to achieve because the effects of similar events on a computer are not the same as on a brain.

They’ve paced themselves in a way that is, although strikingly rapid, not too quick for them to hold. As you said they’ve learned from Gorbachev. They know to pace themselves. China is an ancient nation, I doubt they would make such a simple mistake. Especially with the Russian Comp as a historical example of what to and not to do.

Whatever the case I think they have enough resources and workers to sustain themselves. Their population isn’t growing at a slow pace itself, after all… As their people become more numerous their nation will only gain in economical strength and potential. Plus, their taking advantage of smaller nations and their modicum budgets. China is marketing their J-10 at a price low enough that nations that cannot usually afford state-of-the-art jets are buying heavily in on them. If the current patterns continue China is going to gain a fortune, and economical control over various nations and their militaries. This would be very bad.

It was this control that made me think of WWIII. Why did Japan join into WWII? It was not because they necessarily agreed with Hitler’s preaching, but rather because there was mutual gain in supporting the Nazis (or so they thought!), and only loss in other lines of action.

I’m beating around the bush. I’ll be more direct. China is starting to develop such a position that these other nations are going to rely heavily on them. So if China falls so do those nations. Thus, these nations are going to join in on China’s side. Of course if America is involved in a conflict for what ever chimera reason with China (Lets say to protect Taiwan from genocide) they have dependants as well. So if America starts to crumble, other people will crumble with us.

This is ignoring allies. If you add them into the mix it only serves as to further lead to the conclusion of WWIII. China is building cordial relationships in Africa, as I believe you may have already mentioned. If for nothing else than amiability their African allies are likely to join in. Now, African militaries are not renowned to be well trained, but they’re numerous. Also, their battle tactics are fierce and effective. African nations don’t fight with armies. They fight with their entire population. (This may be generalizing.) Of course America herself has allies that seem to follow her almost blindly. Can you guess which one’s I am referring to?

But, I think this is mostly fantasy. I don’t think it’s likely to happen, at least not any time soon. But, if China really does have imperial intentions for the future, it may just come that this nightmare is made reality. The Sheol of my mind may come to consume the Shangri-La of this veil that covers war with peace.

=D, You like the topic? Glad to hear it, some people don’t seem too happy about it.


Edit:

n0odle wrote:

China's pollution is actually getting worse. Way worse. Its been predicted that in 10 years are so, China's green house gas emissions will exceed that of the US. China burns so much coal per year its actually blackens the sky.


Our sources clash. From what I've read their population is growing at such a rapid pace that China is hoping to slow it because, (and It hink I may be contradicting something I said earlier) they don't have the immediate resources to support many more people than they are already struggling to feed.
3928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Jersey
Offline
Posted 4/24/07


I got a bit confused on this part: “third...what are they doing focusing on military technology? if they're thinking about long term, think desertification. the Gobi desert's expanding too quickly and the water scarcity issue, plus the pollution…” Could you re-explain that to me? Sorry.


Right now the Gobi desert is increasing in size at a rapid pace. Many oases (sp?) are disappearing a fertile land is slowly drying up. This is called desertification and causes a deterioration of the fertility of the land causing massive ecological problems. People are beginning to move out of those areas and crowding urban centers.

Personally, I don't see how you can really fix this. Artificially rejuvenating the land would take too much funding which China just doesn't have at the moment to use.


I’m beating around the bush. I’ll be more direct. China is starting to develop such a position that these other nations are going to rely heavily on them. So if China falls so do those nations. Thus, these nations are going to join in on China’s side.


OR we can do the same thing that happened with the Opium Wars with Britain.
3021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Insert Semi-Cleve...
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
of course China has nukes, Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty states they're 1 of 5 who's allowed legally. but then theres India and Pakistan, and S.Africa, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, N. Korea etc...not to mention all other technically developed countries (think Lithuania and the Netherlandsinnuocuous but fully capable of developing nukes in a relatively short time)...

pls keep in mind these are all just my opinions...

I'm not equating military might with ecological problems. i'm pointing out that it'd much more benificial for them in the long run to fight against global warming so they don't end up fighting Russia for Siberia which they might end up doing after all the land turns into desert and the ice in Siberia melts. but thats just a theory...anyway just 7-10% of their GDP focused on the environment, that needs to go up further...

i think the ethos ur talking about is Confucianism, which is trully unique to east asia, but then again the Soviet Union was a regime of propaganda as well. plus the SU didnt go down because of a 'revolution' by the dissatisfied people. it got bankrupted and too corrupt. maybe that's why China's trying to avoid the same economic tangle. and China able to sustain itself? of course it could materialistically. i'm talking more politically and ideologically. Liberal democratization, a new brand of capitalism vs. the core of communist teachings. i have no doubt China will still be here in a thousand year's time. and i'm not too sure but Chinese history has not a lot to do with its politics lately it seems, besides if your talking about history Russia has a rich and varied one (though not exactly the most stellar one either). and off topic but imo Japan did not 'join' the war, they took advantage of all the confusion in europe to widen their empire and to gain valuable resources. Japan had no ideological similarities with Germany (aside from the obvious militaristic stance) and even if they singed a non-aggression treaty with Germany, that piece of paper is really not worth anything, after all Poland and Germany signed a similar treaty and look what happened to that?

Im not as concerned about African armies, more about their resources. Nigeria(47th highest GDP) alone produces a hell of a lot of oil.Cordial relations means more economic cooperation and in this capitalist driven world, what is really important is the money. and if you're referring to Japan when you say blindly the UK's idealistic but practical PM is a good man and not a puppy, contrary to rumours...
56650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Boston
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
There isn't much point in taking this discussion into the realm of nuclear or biological weapons. IF any country, U.S. included was to use nuclear weapons the global backlash would be enormous. The world is becoming a smaller and smaller place thanks to globalization and contrary to the belief of our current president the rest of the world does matter.

The reason why the U.S. got away with dropping two nukes in WWII were two-fold. First because the technology was new and not understood. There weren't nearly as many inquiries into the horrible effects of radiation and nuclear downfall that there have been now. I'm sure you're all aware that nuclear bombs are simply devastating and it's much more than just the initial blast, you also have to consider the radio active fallout that would occur hundreds even thousands of miles away.

Secondly the vast majority of military interests around the world were already caught up in a two way struggle for global power. That is to say every major military power of the day was wrapped up in a two sided conflict. There were no concerns about pissing off the entire world because the whole place was already a mess.

These two things are no longer present today. Nuclear technology and consequences are understood by the masses to a limited degree. If you walked up to almost any normal citizen in almost any country and asked them how much destruction they thought a nuclear bomb would cause they would have a vague idea of at least the actual blast, if not the resulting radiation and radioactive fallout. If you've been listening at all about global warming, animal rights, human rights, or the ecological movements you're aware of the sheer number of people around the world who are concerned with the wellbeing of others and the world in general. This means that anyone dropping a nuclear bomb would be responsible for the consequences on the global scale both in the cost of human life and the cost to the environment as well.

The lack of a full scale world war is probably the biggest prohibiter to the actual use of any sort of weapon of mass destruction. For example if we had in fact found a cache of large proportions in Iraq the necessary justification for the war would be there and the global and domestic backlash that the president is getting would be almost nonexistent. People around the world have this strange tendency to want to continue to live. Most are aware that a world wide nuclear war would ultimately mean the demise of that existence. If one country was to stick their head out by launching a nuclear strike against another the rest of the world would drop the axe and cut it off. There is no universal support from any ally for any country today. All of the U.S. or China's allies would bail if either country was to actually launch a preemptive nuclear strike.

Simply put nuclear weapons are a posturing device more than anything. It's a way of saying don't hurt me and I won't hurt you more than an actual planned method of attack. The reasons for this are obvious. The nuclear arsenal of the U.S. alone is enough to snuff out life as we know it. The U.S. could literally wipe out 5,000 of the biggest cities around the world. To give you a vague idea of how destructive that would be in the U.S. only counting the 50 largest cities circa 2005 that is almost 50 million people.which is a full 1/6 of our population. Killing those 50 million people would only be using 1% of our nuclear capacity. That number would then be inflated by the resulting radioactive effects. (For those interested the results of the nuclear bombing of Japan are estimated to be 210,000 casualties. The bombs had a yield of 12,000-15,000 tons Hiroshima and 20,000-22,000 tons Nagasaki. The strongest bomb the U.S. is currently in possession of has a yield of 9,000,000 tons or 450 times the power of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki.) There is simply no way any world power would get away with such a blatant disregard for human life and ecological welfare. Any country that did launch a nuclear bomb can expect a few things. A global lock down of their economy meaning they would then have to become completely self sufficient for everything. A probable retaliatory nuclear strike or a large scale invasion from nearly every other global force. A domestic uprising and outcry from their own populace.
6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
Let me just say this: No country is stupid enough to nuke another country. Its suicide. I am pretty sure less then 1 hour after the first nuke lunch that country will be blown to kingdom come.
446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Texas. i want 2go...
Offline
Posted 4/25/07
In terms of China starting ww3 for more land, that is possible. they have the man power to stay in almost any country if they go to war. their army is a army best used a war like that unlike the U.S. which has a military only good for defence. You can see that in the Iraq war we went in and kicked ass and after that we stayed even though we finished up what we went there to do, and now we a getting fucked for that. There is not enough man power for the in the U.S. military. Also in tech they are getting into technoligy thats on par with the U.S. and other Nations.

Plus just look at their history.Look at world history. There was 2 world all ready. Its not to hard to think there will be another one. History repeats its self. and if this sounds stupid this is coming from a 16yrs ok cut my some slack
6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 4/25/07

unlike the U.S. which has a military only good for defence.


Learn your fucking history. Did you not know what happened in WWII and Iraq? Or do you still think this is the 1700s?
446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Texas. i want 2go...
Offline
Posted 4/25/07
If I recall back in ww2 we had a thing called the draft, and for Iraq I said we kicked ass
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.