China News Thread

[FCP Bob 1,312]

and my contention is that the US doesn't care if China could take them out, because they know China wouldn't do something so stupid.

 

things can escalate very quickly.

 

Is China going to do a sneak attack on a carrier battle group ? Of course not.

 

Would China put up a naval blockade of Taiwan and tell all other country's warships to stay out of the Taiwan Strait and then the US runs a couple destroyers in there since it's International waters and something goes badly wrong ? It could.

 

There are things you use as bargaining chips with certain countries. You do not use the One China issue with China. It goes to the core of who they think their country is and it isn't just the government. The average Chinese person will fully support their government using military force against Taiwan over this issue.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

good article on the background behind US and Taiwan and the One China Policy

 

An open letter to Donald Trump on the One-China policy

[Balloon guy 158]

this is true

 

It's also true that the US is not guaranteed to be the strongest in a battle in the East China Sea or South China Sea.

 

Let's put it this way, the US is not going to be putting the aircraft carriers in the Taiwan Strait like they did in the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis because China now has the capabilities to take them out that close to the Chinese mainland.

 

Almost everyone has this capability. Ship killing missiles are better and cheaper than ever. Which is forcing the Joint Chiefs to face the reality that a Carrier Battle group is not a 'lock' anymore.

 

The question is do they have the will?

 

Because it's not the one or two ships they damage, it's the fleet that is 20 times more powerful than your own, the Air Force that is capable of reaching every location in your country, and the ability to repel any invasion we want.

 

We could probably not invade China, but who cares. It's a will thing for us also. We would need a Pearl Harbor style attack to commit to totally destroying another nation. And we did it last time with half our military, because the other half was kicking someone else's butt at the same time.

 

In the mean time, China's 4 refurbished aircraft carriers are not much of a match up to our 10 (and 9 other plane launching ships we don't really count because we have a real navy)

[Dubey 1,035]

"We could probably beat them in a fight" is not a good justification for antagonizing the second biggest guy in the room.

 

Standard rationale from you though.

 

Do you spend a lot of time figuring out how to spin each boneheaded thing that Trump does into your own narrative or do these occur naturally to you?

[Fenxis 99]

"We could probably beat them in a fight" is not a good justification for antagonizing the second biggest guy in the room.

 

Standard rationale from you though.

 

Do you spend a lot of time figuring out how to spin each boneheaded thing that Trump does into your own narrative or do these occur naturally to you?

 

Also I thought a big point of voting for Trump was that Hillary was a "warhawk".

 

And while I think the "One China" policy is silly and China is making ridiculous territorial claims in the South China Sea and needs to be in check somehow I think it's "hilarious" that Clinton might put any servicemen in harms way over Russia wanting to eat up Eastern Europe but now that the Orange One is being a complete noob in Asia the Trumpites are all puffing out their chests and waving their 'murica flags.

 

[Balloon guy 158]

"We could probably beat them in a fight" is not a good justification for antagonizing the second biggest guy in the room.

 

Standard rationale from you though.

 

Do you spend a lot of time figuring out how to spin each boneheaded thing that Trump does into your own narrative or do these occur naturally to you?

 

You should stick to sideline yapping, because you don't have the slightest clue about anything militarily.

 

I blame your nationality, you guys are worthless in international situations, and your only contribution anymore is as nurses, clerks and other predominately feminine pursuits.

 

China is not 2nd biggest guy in room, except in China, and then probably they are 3rd.

 

I never said we could probably beat them, we can beat them with half of army in anything we want, but like Canada, they get away with acting like they matter because America doesn't feel like taking it over. Although in your case it would require one if our state's national guard, and maybe a couple jeeps.

 

Pretend you are witty more though, it's cute. Like a little girl cute.

 

In the mean time Trump will show you how men act, and you will continue to be completely confused and scared.

 

It's okay, we'll protect you. Like always. Because you guys are irrelevant to everything going on in the world.

 

Kind of like Chad...and New Zealand

 

[digitalmonkey 929]

Ah I'm devastated. The orally fixated guy with the low self-esteem insulted my nationality.

 

 

[Dubey 1,035]

3 male/female references with a negative connotation to the female side in one short post.

 

Some kinda complex you have going on there BG.

 

 

Can I guess what kind of vehicle you drive?

[GOCUBSGO 77]

You should stick to sideline yapping, because you don't have the slightest clue about anything militarily.

 

I blame your nationality, you guys are worthless in international situations, and your only contribution anymore is as nurses, clerks and other predominately feminine pursuits.

 

China is not 2nd biggest guy in room, except in China, and then probably they are 3rd.

 

I never said we could probably beat them, we can beat them with half of army in anything we want, but like Canada, they get away with acting like they matter because America doesn't feel like taking it over. Although in your case it would require one if our state's national guard, and maybe a couple jeeps.

 

Pretend you are witty more though, it's cute. Like a little girl cute.

 

In the mean time Trump will show you how men act, and you will continue to be completely confused and scared.

 

It's okay, we'll protect you. Like always. Because you guys are irrelevant to everything going on in the world.

 

Kind of like Chad...and New Zealand

 

Yeah! Women are weak! Men are strong! Murica's the best! Err...Make America Great Again! Canada is full of girly men! Grab em by the p*ssy! Thanks Obama! Go Trump!

 

Did I do it right?

[Balloon guy 158]

Gammas going to gamma

[digitalmonkey 929]

Gamma? As in a woman of distinction?

Reading your words I wouldn't think you believed such women existed.

[Dubey 1,035]

Gammas going to gamma

 

Insecure wannabe alpha males gonna alpha.

[Balloon guy 158]

Again, you're doing it wrong.

 

If I 'alpha', then I'm not a 'wannabe'.

 

You can learn, but it will require effort on your part.

[Dubey 1,035]

 

 

Insecure wannabe alpha males gonna wannabe alpha.

 

better?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Remember the 'Thucydides Trap'? The Chinese Do; Trump Clearly Does Not

 

The idea Allison was getting across—that managing relations between the United States and China is enormously important, and also very complex, and not guaranteed to turn out well—is built into the themes Henry Kissinger was expressing to Jeffrey Goldberg in the interview in that same issue, and that I was explaining in my article, and that every U.S. president from Richard Nixon through Obama has reflected upon and, with some variations, built into his policy toward China, the Koreas, Japan, Asia, and the world as a whole.

Reduced to three elements, the policy would be:

• Relations with China really matter, for each country’s interests and for the world’s;
  
• They’re very complex and less obvious than they seem, in part because the Chinese government sees the world differently from the U.S. government in some important ways; and
  
• If poorly managed, they can lead to great danger, even the unlikely-but-conceivable military showdown. This is another way of stating the first point, with emphasis on the downside.
  

In his press conference yesterday, Barack Obama lightly touched several of these points, in talking about the entities we usually refer to as “Taiwan” (the People’s Republic of China, HQ in Taipei) and “China” (the People’s Republic of China, HQ in Beijing):

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Video from operations on China's 1st aircraft carrier. China purchased the hull from The Ukraine and then fitted it out. It's a smallish carrier and even the Chinese admit that it's mainly for training and testing carrier operations while they build their own larger operational carriers which they are currently doing.

 

http://www.miaopai.com/show/MDiYXDdkgYbpstA-a8lZoA__.htm

[Scrim 115]

Video from operations on China's 1st aircraft carrier. China purchased the hull from The Ukraine and then fitted it out. It's a smallish carrier and even the Chinese admit that it's mainly for training and testing carrier operations while they build their own larger operational carriers which they are currently doing.

 

http://www.miaopai.c...tA-a8lZoA__.htm

 

The interesting thing about China is that they bring to any future conflicts what we brought to the 2nd world war- the ability to produce positively crazy amounts of war materials. Nobody was superior to Germany strategically or technologically, but we had a nearly unlimited production base which overwhelmed the master race.

 

That now belongs to China. If we ever went at it with them, it would go nuclear very, very quickly (probably immediately) as we could never hope to win a protracted war against them.

 

If you look at the major wars throughout history, very rarely have they been lost by way of a single strategic blunder (although Hitler and Russia comes close). Its usually just attrition and whoever has the most resources for the longest.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The hottest funeral of the year featured 50 pole dancers and giant puppets

 

 

[Fenxis 99]

Ya but that's Taiwan, the "totally not China guys".

[FCP Bob 1,312]

It sounds like some of the adults had Trump's ear for a few minutes anyway.

 

 

Trump backs ‘One China’ policy in first presidential call with Xi

 

 

Pledge to abide by protocol of recognising Beijing not Taipei set to ease US-China tensions

[Scrim 115]

Trump entered a discussion with the counter-party who now wanted something from him.

 

This is what winners do. This is something keenly considered by people who make deals for a living.

 

Now, what did Trump get in exchange for that? Was it something concrete? Was it a pledge of 'goodwill and other considerations' on other matters?

 

While Trump is mostly a lunatic, it will be very interesting to see how much change an actual dealmaker can effect in 4 years of the Presidency. It's potentially yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Trump entered a discussion with the counter-party who now wanted something from him.

 

This is what winners do. This is something keenly considered by people who make deals for a living.

 

Now, what did Trump get in exchange for that? Was it something concrete? Was it a pledge of 'goodwill and other considerations' on other matters?

 

While Trump is mostly a lunatic, it will be very interesting to see how much change an actual dealmaker can effect in 4 years of the Presidency. It's potentially yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge.

 

LOL, give me a break you don't believe this.

 

Here's what happened.

 

Pro Independance elements in Taiwan spend huge money on lobbying in Washington and they got people close to Trump to be "tough" on China and bring up the "One China" issue which of course Trump had zero idea how much it matters to the Chinese.

 

China as anybody with any understanding of China reacted as expected with alarmist threatening statements from semi-official sources and firm statements from official ones.

 

Trump does his phone calls with important World leaders round but China's Xi refuses to speak to Trump as long as there is any question about the "One China" issue which is a great strategy and it works. Xi forces Trump to issue a statement that the US supports the "One China" policy as the price for the phone call.

 

So to sum it up Trump gave Xi a Yuge win and was forced to lose in a situation where nothing has actually changed vis a vis American policy.

 

You way overestimate the "deals" that Trump has made in his business career. The deals that government leaders make are far more complex than those of a real estate developer. You've accused me of overestimating the significance of academics and their expertise but you seem to be blinded by Trump's supposed business skills and how those will transfer into governing. He certainly is showing that the management skills he has from running a pretty simple family business are lacking when it comes to managing the Executive Branch.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Capital Economics ‏@CapEconChina 8h8 hours ago

3 weeks in, China's worries over Trump (45% tariff, "One China") have diminished & its wishes have come true (TPP)

https://www.capitaleconomics.com/publications/china-economics/china-economics-update/chinas-worries-over-trump-fade/ …

[Scrim 115]

You way overestimate the "deals" that Trump has made in his business career. The deals that government leaders make are far more complex than those of a real estate developer. You've accused me of overestimating the significance of academics and their expertise but you seem to be blinded by Trump's supposed business skills and how those will transfer into governing. He certainly is showing that the management skills he has from running a pretty simple family business are lacking when it comes to managing the Executive Branch.

 

You don't 'overestimate academics' as you do blindly refer to them to back-fill some preexisting belief you have.

It's the old | Preexisting Belief > Find Something To Support It > SEE, I'M RIGHT! | formula which at no time ever reconciles itself against anything critical, logical scrutiny, etc meaning you can always persuade yourself that your preexisting beliefs are correct if someone out there who appears credible agrees. Once you get into beliefs that break hard upon camp lines, you can always cite all sorts of entities from 'your camp' who likewise agree without ever bothering to articulate your beliefs in the face of logical criticism.

 

If you want to believe the earth is 7000 years old, you can always cite Harvard educated PhD geologist Kurt Wise as someone who agrees and is certainly more credentialed on geology than anyone who might disagree, but does that prove you're right? Or does it prove that academia can be an endless loop where anything can be rationalized, supported or otherwise theorized as correct and is full of a lot of people who are routinely wrong?

 

Your core thesis is TRUMP, BAD! so you wind up doing what outlets like CNN and the like have been doing every day for the past few months- whatever he does anything, you claim it's all wrong and obviously, that's true because here, here's an article in the New York Times with someone somewhere who says so AND HE IS A WORLD RENOWNED 'ONOMIST SO I'D SAY THAT SETTLES IT!

 

Your arguments are flawless examples of mindless appeal to authority, or, an exercise in how people consigned to information or ideological ghettos can always rationalize their own bullshit.

 

Like, your belittling Trump's business acumen, because BUSINESS DEALS ARE SIMPLE BUT GOVERNMENT, THAT'S, LIKE, COMPLICATED! ... which is reaching truly astonishing levels of ideologue'itis. Or that Trump's business interests under the Trump Orginization were "simple".

 

https://en.wikipedia...mp_Organization

 

Literal LOL at that one.

[Balloon guy 158]

They used to say George Bush was an idiot because of his cadence.

 

He only got to fly the F-102 because his daddy pulled some strings.

 

And the F-102 was an easy jet to fly.

 

Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9.

 

Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours.

 

The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.

 

 

Probably got lucky, you know with the easy flight characteristics of a plane flying mach 1.25.

 

 

Anyone could do it. Just like building and running a business empire.

 

Easy Peasy