Taiwan to buy $6.4 billion in weapons from US

This depends on how you define "imperialism". The Spratly islands isn't about invading and occupying other countries but about defining territorial rights. I am not saying that the PRC's claim is clear but that its a far different thing from the imperialism as practiced by empires like Britain that went in and took over outright other countries.

 

What US needs to do is start selling weapons to China. Create jobs, lower our trade deficit, establish better relations, it's all positive... except it will never happen because people would freak out about a communist takeover.

 

Most of their military is focused inward, with nukes acting as an outward deterrent.

 

except China would buy only once and just a little and then take it apart and copy it for half the cost.

 

They will then sell the crappy knockoff weapons back to us in little shops along Canal Street in New York City.

 

That's funny since in Hong Kong I stumbled across the gun district where they were selling everything from AK-47's to P-90's. I am not much of a gun guy so I don't know for sure if they were even real guns. (they looked very real) Even if they were real guns I am guessing they were knock offs given the prices.

Also I didn't see ammo being sold so perhaps that is HK gun control. You can buy any gun you want but you can't get ammo.

 

Chinese not imperialistic? Since when? You need to read Chinese history a little.

 

Note I said "PRC" not "China" I am talking about the current government and not the T'Ang Dynasty.

That said I think the only area where there is an argument for PRC imperialism is Tibet but other than that the PRC hasn't acted like an imperial power as we would normally think of in the sense of the British Empire.

 

The British Empire ceased to be an empire long ago. China-Vietnam border dispute was more recent. PRC and Tibet is recent and on going. The Spratly Islands dispute is on going. Taiwan's issue is now.

The PRC has not acted more like an imperial power because it can't, not because of the goodness of their heart.

 

Actually the British Empire still exist although very very diminished. For a more contemporary example consider the USSR which actually took over many smaller countries like the Baltics. The PRC never sought to actually occupy Vietnam or the countries it is disputing the Spratlys with. Taiwan is a different issue since Taiwan still has a government that technically still considers itself the rightful government of all of China.

That might possibly be so but other than Tibet the PRC has not acted like an imperial power. While it has had border disputes (I noticed you didn't mention the PRC's border disputes with India and the USSR) pretty much every country has had border disputes. Saying the PRC is acting like an imperial power because of border disputes would be like saying that Ecuador has acted like an imperial power because it has border disputes with Peru.

 

You're fixating on the word, which I admit may have been a poor choice for me to use, especially considering China's history with having to deal with the designs of the more classic imperial powers of Europe during the last 2-3 centuries (at least), and those of Japan after that country's modernisation in more recent history, so I'll phrase it a bit differently. China clearly has designs on control of the resources under the South China Sea. It's in their national interest to do so. It is rapidly constructing, "by hook or by crook," a navy and air force large enough, and modern enough, to dominate the naval and air power of the countries bordering the South China Sea, and to challenge the preeminent naval and air power in the Pacific, the United States. You say that China's actions are "about defining territorial rights," which I think is splitting hairs when force and intimidation is used by China to "define" those territorial rights in its favor, in order to have possession of the vast oil and gas in the contentious area.

The result has been predictable. It has spurred a response from the countries affected, who are now building up their own naval and air power as rapidly as their finances will allow. For example, Vietnam recently spent $2 billion on six advanced Kilo-class Russian submarines and $1 billion on Russian fighter jets. Malaysia now has a new submarine base on Borneo. Indonesia and Singapore, (among others) have dramatically increased their spending on naval and air power. I stress naval and air power, as that is the means with which the area could be controlled. The United States, which had been slowly reducing its naval and air forces in the region, is now looking to do the opposite. The "Charm Offensive" by China over the last decade, promoting closer economic ties and a declared interest in a peaceful settlement of claims in the South China Sea, is in tatters. Instead, we see the buildup of naval/air power that I mentioned, and a big increase in tension between China and the litorral nations. Oil/gas exploration ships from Vietnam and the Philippines have had those ships harrassed by the Chinese Navy, and multimillion dollar seismic cables have been cut. Those aren't the actions of a nation with a declared interest in a peaceful division of the undersea rights in the South China Sea among the nations involved. So far, economic relations remain strong, but that outlook could easily change if more conflict on the high seas occurs.

Time will show if China's declared interest in a peaceful settlement of claims is real. China recently claimed the area as a "core interest" of the nation, which is a significant departure for China, and a significant statement by her when discussing "territorial rights." I hope this explained my concerns a bit better, Judo. One only needs to look at the Gulf of Mexico for an example of how undersea oil and gas rights (and exploration) can be divided between nations. The US and Mexico have long been working in their respective areas, and now Cuba is beginning to do so, as well. It's but one example of many where nations divide undersea resources. The North Sea is another.

 

Can't you save all that rambling for when China actually invades someone? Like, say, Afghanistan? Or any other country that we've invaded for fun in the past?

 

Don't like what I wrote? Tough.

 

We didn't invade Afghanistan for fun. Ever heard of Mullah Omar? The Taliban? Al-Qaeda? Those should ring a bell.

 

Hong Kong definitely does not sell real guns, you were in the airsoft/bbgun district, and yes they do look very real but they only shoot out bb pellets

 

What more can they do regarding Iran. Iran now produces a bunch of C-801, 802 C-803 chinese knock offs. China is obviously helping them. Iran's arms industry is comical. they put a second fin on a prehistoric F-5E and call it an F-18 varient. They send a knockoff russian scud into space and boast as if it's something special.

Thiese missiles and planes would be renderd useless once the US ECM jammers and GPS jammers go into full mode. Their whole industry is based on knockoffs.

 

Well, it is true that Americans still lack the necessary weaponry to hold the US government in check like the 2nd amendment is suppose to do. I guess this would be one step towards that goal. Make tanks and jet fighters common enough so citizens can destroy Washington whenever the need arises.

 

I am not going to deny that the PRC is doing what you say they are doing but then again pretty much every country has done the same. The PRC is hardly alone in this matter. At the same time you are failing to consider that given the history many of the claims by Vietnam, Philippines and other countries aren't clear cut either and the conflict for the Spratlys isn't as though everyone else is getting along and its just the PRC causing problems those other countries don't necessarily agree with each other either. Not saying it is right but throwing out such terms as "by hook or by crook" seems rather alarmist and is bordering on the old "Yellow Horde" paranoia that has marked much of US PRC relations.

Keep in mind though that the arms race going on is not solely due to fear of the PRC. The PRC is a big player but at the sametime there is a long running fear, I might even call it paranoia, of the Japan remilitarizing.

Also I find it interesting you site Singapore buildup as a response to a threat from the PRC, no offense but that shows that you aren't that familiar with Singapore. Singapore is a country that in the past 20 years has been doing all it can to cozy up to the PRC to the extent that they are on the Beijing timezone and not the Bangkok Jakarta timezone which by longitude they should be in. Singapore's military buildup is about a fear of Malaysia and Indonesia which every now and then they have rhetorical spats with. Singapore has no territorial disputes with the PRC.

You have to look at the PRC's rhetoric like the Monroe doctrine where the US told European powers hands off the Carribean and Latin America. It should come as no surprise that the PRC sees the South China Sea as of a core interest to it, keep in mind so does every other country bordering it also. That said I still doubt there will be any major conflict. Consider the case with the Diaoyutai / Senkaku Islands where the PRC and Taiwan have been in conflict with Japan for decades yet none of those countries have come to blows over them.

Again I don't want to say the PRC is right in regard to these territorial issues but their actions are far different than the actions of what are generally considered imperial powers. While their actions aren't necessarily reassuring for regional peace your post strikes me as more alarmist rhetoric calling for containment of the PRC.

 

Again I am not a gun guy and never handled any of those weapons so you may be right. That said they had some pretty big barrels for BB or airsoft guns.