China has successfully destroyed one of their own satellites, thus demonstrating the ability to do the same to U.S. satellites in a future conflict. They are advancing militarily, and are becoming more of a realistic military threat every year.
In world history, the emergence of a new superpower to challenge an old one is often followed by a war. I hope we can manage a more peaceful accommidation this time.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

Seeing that their national population has 120 men for every 100 women, they also have all the manpower they could ever need to hold their own on the battlefield. They could lose tens of millions of men in wartime, and still have millions left to regenerate their population


see here http://www.euthanasia.com/china-ra.html

We cant win a war with China, just FYI.

We cant win a war with China, just FYI.

Not in their territory, that's for sure. Should they try to bring conflict to the U.S., then it's a different story. It would be near impossible to move a sufficient number of troops and their equipment without anyone noticing.

China has successfully destroyed one of their own satellites, thus demonstrating the ability to do the same to U.S. satellites in a future conflict. They are advancing militarily, and are becoming more of a realistic military threat every year. In world history, the emergence of a new superpower to challenge an old one is often followed by a war. I hope we can manage a more peaceful accommodation this time.

Now, now... let's talk about military threats, put yourself in the shoes of any country (other than the US), and see if you wouldn't consider the US a military threat to any of them. The problem with some of you is that you consider everyone else with the capability to stand and say, "you can't go any further", a military threat, when all time you were (also) a military threat to them.

China has successfully destroyed one of their own satellites, thus demonstrating the ability to do the same to U.S. satellites in a future conflict. They are advancing militarily, and are becoming more of a realistic military threat every year.
In world history, the emergence of a new superpower to challenge an old one is often followed by a war. I hope we can manage a more peaceful accommidation this time.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html


Both countries have to much to lose to have total war with one another. You know the old saying, no countries that both had McDonald's ever went to war with each other.

But, but, but, but I thought all Chinese weaponry was junk? How could they possibly pull this off? ROTF.

why do you love chinese and russian weapons so much dop? Its not like you just like them, you love them, and never miss a chance to say how much better they are then ours. What gives?

Both countries have to much to lose to have total war with one another. You know the old saying, no countries that both had McDonald's ever went to war with each other.


It is also true that two nuclear powers have never yet fought a war with each other. India and Pakistan came close a few years ago. Eventually it will happen.

Liberal, I do not consider China a major threat to the United States at this time. They are, however, developing the capability to become one. They are vastly increasing their military spending, and becoming a superpower. This is within their rights, and I am not against that. Superpowers, however, do tend to come into conflict over resources. With the limited supply of resources available at any time, this often leads to war.
In the case of China there are other potential problems. One of these is Taiwan. Is Taiwan a part of China, or an independent country? We are obligated by treaty to defend them. Another problem is economic. The increasing balance of trade imbalance. They are investing that money in financing our debt. That causes problems only if they attempt to control our policy by threatening to pull out those funds. That could cause huge problems in our economy.
There are problems in any relationship, and particulairly so when the balance of power is changing. I am hoping that we can resolve those problems peacefully. I am not overly optomistic because when I look at history I see many examples of war when a new power emerges.

China's economy and our economy are intertwined, and become more so everyday. What would they gain by going to war with us? who is going to buy all thier crap?

I agree with Travh... China has nothing to gain by making war on the U.S. It was the same with the U.S.S.R. in the 1980's. Their economy was so dependent upon that of western Europe that they really could not afford to attack. If they had, where would they get their coca-cola or pizza hut lunches?

I wonder how many times China tried to shoot down a sattelite and failed? I am sure the didnt jst do one test and hit it. Of course I am sure Dop would like us to belive that. Remember our missle shield thing? the media loved reporting when it failed, but when it worked there was no report.

also from the article: The United States has been able to bring down satellites with missiles since the mid-1980s, according to a history of ASAT programs posted on the Union of Concerned Scientists Web site. In its own test, the U.S. military knocked a satellite out of orbit in 1985.

In light of what Travh has proposed, how many died before a successful launch took place. The Chinese, along with many other Oriental societies aren't real well known for their value of human life. Yet, they have probabaly learned very well from the multitude of technological manuals available from the free world and also learned well from our mistakes. Let us hope this does not lead to our downfall.

why do you love chinese and russian weapons so much dop? Its not like you just like them, you love them, and never miss a chance to say how much better they are then ours. What gives?


I don't recall ever saying their weapons are better than ours ... just that they are very good weapons and we shouldn't underestimate them. In some cases, their weapons are the best -- in other cases our weapons are the best. More than likely France, Britian, Sweden and others make something, somewhere that is the best too. That's what makes the world go round.

I agree with Travh... China has nothing to gain by making war on the U.S. It was the same with the U.S.S.R. in the 1980's. Their economy was so dependent upon that of western Europe that they really could not afford to attack. If they had, where would they get their coca-cola or pizza hut lunches?

Japan had nothing to gain when they attacked the U.S. in 1941. They lost their largest market, and gained a powerful opponent. They attacked us because we stood in the way of their acquiring resources. The same could easily happen with China.

Japan had nothing to gain when they attacked the U.S. in 1941. They lost their largest market, and gained a powerful opponent. They attacked us because we stood in the way of their acquiring resources. The same could easily happen with China.

ya, an dlook what happened to japan

ya, an dlook what happened to japan
China is a different (and quite a bit larger) fish entirely.

the bigger the fish the bigger the BBQ

We cant win a war with China, just FYI.

China sure as hell can't beat us. They don't have near the naval power to get their troops over here.

The ONLY chance China has at ever beating us involves the use of nuclear weapons. In the even of that EVER happening (which is highly unlikely, mind you), the world will cease to exist.

Wars aren't fought on the battlefields anymore; they're fought in the air. Don't believe me? Just ask the million or so dead Iraqis.

China (missiles aside) is lightyears behind us in that regard.

well, to win a nuclear war you onlyhave to have more people left then the other guy. since china hs more people then us, the chances of them winning a round of mutually assured destruction is pretty good

Not fucking likely, my friend. 80% of their population is situated in two locations, and our accuracy (and not to mention, our penetration) is far superior to theirs.

My guess is we don't need missiles to take out satellites anymore because we're probably using lasers. We could've taken out a satellite with a rocket in '85. Color me impressed, China.

Not fucking likely, my friend. 80% of their population is situated in two locations, and our accuracy (and not to mention, our penetration) is far superior to theirs.

My guess is we don't need missiles to take out satellites anymore because we're probably using lasers. We could've taken out a satellite with a rocket in '85. Color me impressed, China.

ya, but 20% of thier population is eqaul to 100% of ours probably

I agree that at the moment China lacks the naval capacity to bring the war to our shores, and I also agree that they may very well make war to aquire resources. If they want resources they won't come here, they'll walk into Siberia and get oil, all sorts of nice metals, and all the land they could want. Russia is probably the one who needs to worry. If this did happen, I agree with Phyrex...the numbers are just against us. They could lose more people than were killed worldwide in WWII and not even blink.

ya, but 20% of thier population is eqaul to 100% of ours probably
This is true, but those people (and by that, I mean the ones living in the countryside) probably tend rice patties for a pittance. Hell, I'd be surprised if they even had running water....

That aside, you're assuming they could penetrate our airspace. To be honest, it's possible, but that's only *IF* (and it's a big if) they can get their missiles past NMD. Not likely. At least, it's not likely because we'd return fire with a 99% chance of reaching the intended target.

Wars aren't fought on the battlefields anymore; they're fought in the air. Don't believe me? Just ask the million or so dead Iraqis.



It was easy in Iraq where they only had bottles and stones to toss back.

Try it with a world power like China and it will be a different story.

well, to win a nuclear war you onlyhave to have more people left then the other guy. since china hs more people then us, the chances of them winning a round of mutually assured destruction is pretty good

There are no "winners" in a nuclear war.

There are just the fortunate (those who die almost instantly) and the unfortunate. (those who are left to die a slower death)

Of course, those powerful and wealthy white males like Bush and Cheney and their ilk who ride out the war sitting in deep impregnable undergraound shelters will escape (note; whenever I talk about this subject I cannot help but be reminded of Dr. Strangelove's speech in the movie by the same name) pretty much unscathed........but they may one day regret that they have to live out their lives in a fallout shelter.

China sure as hell can't beat us. They don't have near the naval power to get their troops over here.

First of all, the second they started massing up in their ports, and setting sail across the Pacific we'd know about it, wether they have the naval capabilities or not. And if that were the case, the whole world would know well in advance of an attack. I think a more likely scenario would be along the lines of alignment with North Korea, to attack the South, or attacking Japan. Giving us no real choice but to go over there and fight. And if that were the case, we, the United States, at least not alone, could win a conventional war against China. They have 1/3 of the worlds population, and more than half are men.

But, but, but, but I thought all Chinese weaponry was junk? How could they possibly pull this off? ROTF.Their stuff may have been junk. Our stuff (super computers, guidance systems and rockets - courtesy of Bill C. and Loral, his biggest contributor) is pretty good though.

First of all, the second they started massing up in their ports, and setting sail across the Pacific we'd know about it, wether they have the naval capabilities or not. And if that were the case, the whole world would know well in advance of an attack. I think a more likely scenario would be along the lines of alignment with North Korea, to attack the South, or attacking Japan. Giving us no real choice but to go over there and fight. And if that were the case, we, the United States, at least not alone, could win a conventional war against China. They have 1/3 of the worlds population, and more than half are men.

I think the most likely way we would come into conflict with China is over the issue of Taiwan. China might decide the U.S. military is sufficiently tied up in the Middle East at some point and decide to give it a try. I think they might reach that conclusion if we got sucked into a protracted campaign in Iran, along with continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be stretching our resources pretty thin to fight China while continuing those operations.
The second most likely way is being drawn into a war in Central Asia. Should China decide to annex the oil fields around the Caspian Sea and the natural gas reserves in Khazakstan, their invasion routes will most likely be through Afghanistan or just north of there in the old Soviet Republics. That would lead to a real conflict. I doubt they would do this unless we cut off the pipelines they are building. That just might be our response if they invaded Taiwan.

I think the most likely way we would come into conflict with China is over the issue of Taiwan. China might decide the U.S. military is sufficiently tied up in the Middle East at some point and decide to give it a try. I think they might reach that conclusion if we got sucked into a protracted campaign in Iran, along with continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be stretching our resources pretty thin to fight China while continuing those operations.
The second most likely way is being drawn into a war in Central Asia. Should China decide to annex the oil fields around the Caspian Sea and the natural gas reserves in Khazakstan, their invasion routes will most likely be through Afghanistan or just north of there in the old Soviet Republics. That would lead to a real conflict. I doubt they would do this unless we cut off the pipelines they are building. That just might be our response if they invaded Taiwan.

And yes, I completely forgot about Taiwan, thx.

China has successfully destroyed one of their own satellites, thus demonstrating the ability to do the same to U.S. satellites in a future conflict. They are advancing militarily, and are becoming more of a realistic military threat every year.
In world history, the emergence of a new superpower to challenge an old one is often followed by a war. I hope we can manage a more peaceful accommidation this time.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

I am more worried about the economic influence China wields over America right now.

having the ability to do it and doing it when it counts are two differnet things. How are they going to know where exactly our sattelites are?

How are they going to know where exactly our sattelites are?

GPS sats are not hard to locate. They are constantly broadcasting a signal.

well, I guess we better get our missle defense shield up and running then

well, I guess we better get our missle defense shield up and running then

Lets hope we never need it.

It has a terrible accuracy record.

LOL, and the chinese hit every time.
for all you know our missile defense has a better hit percentage then the Chinese satellite missile.

LOL, and the chinese hit every time.
for all you know our missile defense has a better hit percentage then the Chinese satellite missile.


Sure doesn't look that way. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4097267.stm)

There has been a lot of talk about China's threat. I believe they have the potential to be a powerful ally of the US. Both economies stand to make a lot of money through trade agreements. Besides, we don't really have a problem with communism anymore, and even if we did, they're slowly becomming capitalist. I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. This would be especially beneficial to us considering the North Korea situation. While it may be a source of conflict at first, an ally like China in the region gives the US and the UN some bargaining power.

There has been a lot of talk about China's threat. I believe they have the potential to be a powerful ally of the US. Both economies stand to make a lot of money through trade agreements. Besides, we don't really have a problem with communism anymore, and even if we did, they're slowly becomming capitalist. I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. This would be especially beneficial to us considering the North Korea situation. While it may be a source of conflict at first, an ally like China in the region gives the US and the UN some bargaining power.
Well said. I agree completely.

China has North Korea by the balls, thats why im not really so worried about them.

There has been a lot of talk about China's threat. I believe they have the potential to be a powerful ally of the US. Both economies stand to make a lot of money through trade agreements. Besides, we don't really have a problem with communism anymore, and even if we did, they're slowly becomming capitalist. I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. This would be especially beneficial to us considering the North Korea situation. While it may be a source of conflict at first, an ally like China in the region gives the US and the UN some bargaining power.Fantastic post, Evil Homer!!

I would add that as the US becomes more of a police state and human right abuser there is less of a morality gap to close as well. It's much easier to be friends with murdering oppressors when you're well on your way to becoming one yourself!

Glass houses and all that. :thumbs:

I've always felt that morals and politics should be kept in seperate arenas; it's just bad for business. Besides, no one is so holy that they can in good conscience pass that judgment. I disagree with most of my friends on most issues, but we're all still friends. Only when those disagreements begin to affect my well being is there reason for drastic action. I realize that international politics is different from that, and the stakes are much higher, but my point is this: the world is lonely enough, and you need all the friends you can get.

I wouldn't say we're in the beginning of a "beautiful friendship," with China, it seems apparent to me that we've been involved in one for years. They've had MFN status since the Clinton era, have they not?

Sure doesn't look that way. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4097267.stm)

I never said ours has never failed, all I am saying is dont think China's is so perfect and hits every time. Just because we get one story about their anti-satellite missle working doesnt mean they didnt supress 50 about it not working. And for the record, our anti missle thing has worked too, it just gets about 1/1000 of the press by our right wing media then that of a failure.

They've had MFN status since the Clinton era, have they not?Regretfully, this is true.

But that doesn't make it right.

US may provide GPS for China. if so, China won't destroy satellite.
Providing satellite broadcast for China is better. Many benefits of the satellite make China to keep peace in the space.

There has been a lot of talk about China's threat. I believe they have the potential to be a powerful ally of the US. Both economies stand to make a lot of money through trade agreements. Besides, we don't really have a problem with communism anymore, and even if we did, they're slowly becomming capitalist. I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. This would be especially beneficial to us considering the North Korea situation. While it may be a source of conflict at first, an ally like China in the region gives the US and the UN some bargaining power.

But China is a "Communist" country.

That makes them our mortal enemy, doesn't it?
That was the rhetoric all through the cold war.

But China is a "Communist" country.
Not in practice, they're not.

The U.S.S.R. pretty much stopped being a serious threat once they let Coca-Cola & Pizza Hut open up shop behind the Iron Curtain. They just could not provide both a first class military and 2 cars in every garage at the same time. Every time another pipeline opened from the East to the West and with each truckload of goodies heading East the threat of invasion decreased.
With the Chinese penchant for making money it seems they will soon lose interest in engaging in military conflict with both their best customer and biggest supplier.

Not in practice, they're not.

Actually, yes, they are.

They are not Lenninist communists in practice.

US may provide GPS for China. if so, China won't destroy satellite.

It's just a signal broadcast from the satellites - everyone can use it.

The U.S.S.R. pretty much stopped being a serious threat once they let Coca-Cola & Pizza Hut open up shop behind the Iron Curtain. They just could not provide both a first class military and 2 cars in every garage at the same time. Every time another pipeline opened from the East to the West and with each truckload of goodies heading East the threat of invasion decreased.
With the Chinese penchant for making money it seems they will soon lose interest in engaging in military conflict with both their best customer and biggest supplier.

Right on ES. Well said.

The U.S.S.R. pretty much stopped being a serious threat once they let Coca-Cola & Pizza Hut open up shop behind the Iron Curtain. They just could not provide both a first class military and 2 cars in every garage at the same time. Every time another pipeline opened from the East to the West and with each truckload of goodies heading East the threat of invasion decreased.
With the Chinese penchant for making money it seems they will soon lose interest in engaging in military conflict with both their best customer and biggest supplier.

We will see how well that theory holds up the first time Taiwan tries to exert some independance.

We will see how well that theory holds up the first time Taiwan tries to exert some independance.

That will depend on just how far the U.S. inserts itself into that discussion when (not if) it takes place.

US may provide GPS for China. if so, China won't destroy satellite.
Providing satellite broadcast for China is better. Many benefits of the satellite make China to keep peace in the space.

China's missles don't have the range to hit GPS satelites.

Actually, yes, they are.
They are not Lenninist communists in practice.
Boy, you have funny(read stupid) definitions of Communism.

With the Chinese penchant for making money it seems they will soon lose interest in engaging in military conflict with both their best customer and biggest supplier.
I doubt it. Breaking off economic ties with the United States will not be of any concern with those in power in China, since that wont make them any less poor. An example that'll work is if we go back about a half a millenium. Who did war hurt back then? Feudal lords or their serfs? When times got tough because of say a serious decrease in population or a poor harvest, did the world change at all for the ruling class? No, the working population suffered the decrease in standard of living because they had to make it up to their lords. Same thing with China, those in power will only care about their actions if and only if it will affect their standard of living, and chances are an economic collapse between them and the US will only affect the working class. They'll have to go without food, homes, computers, etc. so that the powerful can keep their mansions and fancy cars. The only people China has to worry about are their students, and that problem could probably be fixed with a better draft.

IMHO ...

I've always found the term Len(n)inist [sic] communist to be somewhat of a stretch in that one leads to the other only in very general terms.

Leninism is a form of Marxism, not a form of communism itself because Marxism is also not a form of communism but rather a set of ideologies that put in place and practiced correctly, would lead a society to communism. It seems that Marxism provides a barrier between Leninism and Communism, thus Leninism can only be connected to Communism via the Marxist ideologies.

Technically speaking, today, it would probably be more correct to refer to Leninism as some form or another of either Stalinism or Trotskyism, notwithstanding neither ideology would ever admit to that fact.

OTOH -- Lenin, from what I'ver read (which is quite a bit), comes across as being more-than-somewhat pu**y-whipped so any original thoughts he ever had, probably came from his wife anyway, which makes this all a moot point :D.