First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Ominous Activities in China
6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 4/25/07
What you call draft I call D-Day.
446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Texas. i want 2go...
Offline
Posted 4/25/07
and it was needed, look I am not trying to start shit and on world war 2 that was needed and the war now also might be needed.
5986 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / lazing in England
Offline
Posted 4/25/07
Hopchow, your post almost turned me into a fanboy. Good post.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/07

rhynny wrote:

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...




The points you made about China and her land’s desertification only furthers my theory that China may actually be planning some kind of military movement. Now they have more motivation than even before. If China’s land is dying they may seek to replace it. Especially sense they are clearly not giving the necessary amount of attention to their environment that they need too. Don’t you think they’re smart enough to see that the path their territory is taking? So then why wouldn’t they dedicate more money to their environment? (By the way, how much of their gross domestic production does America spend on their environment. I’m guessing a lot because they keep talking about the E.P.A on the news…)

However I don’t think that Africa has as much economical power as you suggest. I may be wrong. You used Nigeria as your example did you not? Well is it not true that Nigeria is among the top 20 poorest nations in the world? (Based on GNP per capita.) Sense the late 1960s the economical growth has been wild; it unpredictably varies on the insanely erratic fluctuation of the world wide oil demand. Oil, from what I see, has a “wind like” market. It goes up and down, crashes, and then rises back up. Also, Nigeria is in severe debt. I’m not sure on exact numbers but I know they have fallen into more than 150% of their annual E.E (Export Earnings.) More than 70% of their GNP.

Still, from what I’ve understood about African war tactics and previous martial encounters with them, I think they are certainly to be feared. Especially if China starts supplying them with missiles and state-of-the-art jets.
Besides, my theory is that most of Africa is going to be completely consumed with aids.
As far as what China can do about caring for their environment, I have no clue…. Good thing I don’t lead China…



Hopchow wrote:

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.


Yes, that is what I was suggesting. America has the nuclear capabilities to wipe out life as we know it. But why would they do that? They wouldn’t. Basically they have these nukes to avoid the use of nukes. *Nod* I suppose it would be an entirely different thing for somebody to use a nuke now than it was in WWII.
3399 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / singapore
Offline
Posted 4/25/07
hm. okay...a whole one country taking over another country for land...is just so passe. i mean. seriously NOW, i dun think ANY country is going to do that, waste of manpower and money.
1857 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Singapore East
Offline
Posted 4/25/07
the world is in a mess man
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/07

everworld_gal wrote:

hm. okay...a whole one country taking over another country for land...is just so passe. i mean. seriously NOW, i dun think ANY country is going to do that, waste of manpower and money.


The Trojan war was fought over spices... A nation may not go out and attack another nation just to say, "We have land from point A to point B! Haha, we're bigger than you!" However, they may start a war over the resources that come with that land.

32841 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / london
Offline
Posted 4/12/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

China blocks outside news?! Detail man! Educate me! Err... Maybe through Pms? (Don't want this to go off topic right off the bat.)


hello, its been a long time...
but it just caught my mind, again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/25/digitalmedia.chinathemedia
Zer0 
50258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 4/12/08

aztecwrath wrote:

and it was needed, look I am not trying to start shit and on world war 2 that was needed and the war now also might be needed.


Bullshit. Unless if by 'needed', you mean 'needing more oil'.

Still, I don't think China increasing its military spendings is much to worry about - it's becoming a superpower, so it probably needs a military to back it up.

I don't get why they would need the money though - China's a huge place, with conscription. They could probably just Zerg Rush any opponents to death
5993 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/12/08
History always repeats itself.
390 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/12/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


rhynny wrote:

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...




The points you made about China and her land’s desertification only furthers my theory that China may actually be planning some kind of military movement. Now they have more motivation than even before. If China’s land is dying they may seek to replace it. Especially sense they are clearly not giving the necessary amount of attention to their environment that they need too. Don’t you think they’re smart enough to see that the path their territory is taking? So then why wouldn’t they dedicate more money to their environment? (By the way, how much of their gross domestic production does America spend on their environment. I’m guessing a lot because they keep talking about the E.P.A on the news…)

However I don’t think that Africa has as much economical power as you suggest. I may be wrong. You used Nigeria as your example did you not? Well is it not true that Nigeria is among the top 20 poorest nations in the world? (Based on GNP per capita.) Sense the late 1960s the economical growth has been wild; it unpredictably varies on the insanely erratic fluctuation of the world wide oil demand. Oil, from what I see, has a “wind like” market. It goes up and down, crashes, and then rises back up. Also, Nigeria is in severe debt. I’m not sure on exact numbers but I know they have fallen into more than 150% of their annual E.E (Export Earnings.) More than 70% of their GNP.

Still, from what I’ve understood about African war tactics and previous martial encounters with them, I think they are certainly to be feared. Especially if China starts supplying them with missiles and state-of-the-art jets.
Besides, my theory is that most of Africa is going to be completely consumed with aids.
As far as what China can do about caring for their environment, I have no clue…. Good thing I don’t lead China…



Hopchow wrote:

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.


Yes, that is what I was suggesting. America has the nuclear capabilities to wipe out life as we know it. But why would they do that? They wouldn’t. Basically they have these nukes to avoid the use of nukes. *Nod* I suppose it would be an entirely different thing for somebody to use a nuke now than it was in WWII.


Wow, I must say first off, that this is a relatively better developed thesis than the ones on the forum titled "communist china" which now has a bunch of people cursing off at each other..

Anyway, I get the concern. China does have a big stake in our market and can be considered an emerging superpower. But I really don't think that China will be attacking us soon.

First off, why would China need to attack the US? What are the benefits and do they outweigh the gains? I doubt it. You don't just nuke a country because you need to make up for "dessertified land". China's an ancient civilization, they've been dealing with raw material shortages for longer than the US has been in existence (literally). Plus, we also import a lot of goods from China. I don't think they'd want to bomb one of their largest markets.. Somehow I don't think that would be cost effective :P

Second off, the US has a whole heck of a lotta nukes. I realize China has them too, but that only means that there are 2 countries with a lot of nukes. IF china does attack, the US would then fire all of its nukes. The countries' allies could/would also probably be firing off their nukes and/or taking some other offensive/ defensive action militarily, setting off a global panic/ chain reaction. If you look at hopchow's post, the US and China firing their nukes together would probably quite literally bring about the end of the world (what a scary thought). Almost all of the Earth's surface would probably be uninhabitable/death due to either direct impact or the effects of radiation/nuclear fallout. My proof? Take a look at the Cuban missile crisis. It was between the US and a then superpower, Russia. Both countries at first threatened to nuke the other. Both were extremely powerful. A major acronym at the time was "MAD". It stood for Mutual Assured Destruction (happy thoughts, no?). HOWEVER, both countries' leaders recognized that everyone would die if they started a war and realized they had to solve it via diplomacy and negotiation. My point is, China's not that stupid that it would risk destroying itself. And even if it suddenly did abandon the diplomatic tact that has kept it alive for millenia, chances are, they would eventually snap out of it and work out with US.

Third, again, I agree with Hopchow's post, its more about a balance of power than actually attacking anything. China wants to improve militarily to insure it doesnt fall behind and get kicked around by other countries. It gives it muscle to bargain with. I really think thats all.
390 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/12/08

Zer0 wrote:


aztecwrath wrote:

and it was needed, look I am not trying to start shit and on world war 2 that was needed and the war now also might be needed.


Bullshit. Unless if by 'needed', you mean 'needing more oil'.

Still, I don't think China increasing its military spendings is much to worry about - it's becoming a superpower, so it probably needs a military to back it up.

I don't get why they would need the money though - China's a huge place, with conscription. They could probably just Zerg Rush any opponents to death


haha. zurg rush
410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 4/12/08
as stated before China and North America have a lot of trade deals going on right now so i highly doubt China is going to start anything. China is in its industrial boom and a lot of those raw materials is coming from Canada and the U.S.A. China would have nothing to gain from launching any type of attack at North America.. in fact they would have more to lose.

I'm more worried about the U.S.A. stirring up trouble with the rest of the world. In the past 50 years alone they have had how many wars ? Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, and now Iraq (which according the the U.N. charter is an illegal war by the way) .. not to mention the U.S.A. supported war with Israel (which has committed hundreds of war crimes and admits it) and Palestine.

North Korea is economically, socially and technologically backwards. They may be trying to develop nuclear weapons but i don't think they are quite there yet.

anyway thats my 2 cents.
1872 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / F / united kingdom
Offline
Posted 4/12/08
RE oil...tibet has oil.
Coincidence?


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.