Top Chinese diplomat tells US to 'shut up' on arms spending

Tibet and Taiwan aren't really good comparisons.

The Tibetan regime in Lhasa was a repressive, poor, backwards, lightly populated, lightly armed and had no relations or recognition from anyone and was reacheable by land. It was also at a different point in time when the Chinese civil war had been ending and the new PRC govt wanted to assert sovereignty over all the lands not already formally relinquished since the fall of the Qing dynasty.

Taiwan OTOH is a now democratic, relatively properous, heavily populated, fairly well armed and had official and unofficial relations from almost everyone and can only be reached by sea. Invasion even without US intervention would be costly diplomatically, economically and physically. It also itself has contributed to China's own development. These differences suggest strongly that China would not invade "right away" if ever even if the US stayed out of it.

No Chinese leader would be stupid enough to launch an aggressive war against Taiwan with so much at stake unless Taiwan first declared independence (in which case the Chinese leadership would feel it had no choice unless it was willing to just let Taiwan go). The situation is so much different that a comparison with Tibet is assinine.

 

^ Exactly.

Also, there was no bloodshed when PLA first entered Tibet in 1950. Things only turned messy during the mid- to late-1950s when the U.S. stepped up its meddling with China's internal affair by instigating restive insurgency among Tibetans who were about to embrace the same kind of land reform/redistribution that had been going on in the rest of China.

 

Guys, it's hard to have a discussion when one has to wade through the insults. I wanted to add that while I disagree about some of what SM has said about the PRC's ability to invade Japan, he's making his points without talking trash. It makes it hard to take some of you seriously. The BS puts a fog in front of whatever point might be worth making. (unless it's my BS, of course! )

I'm not sure what you mean by "beachhead." If you are talking about a place where the US could launch an invasion of the PRC, then I'd have to say the very idea is ludicrous. During the Korean War, our top general was fired in part for suggesting such a thing, and it would have been far more of a doable thing then, than now. If you mean "beachhead," in the sense of locations for military bases, we are cutting back our forces in SK, as has been pointed out, and while that location is a good one for bases in one sense, proximity to China, (if there was a conflict) it is a poor location in the sense that those bases are vulnerable to NK and PRC conventional missile attacks, and PRC air attacks, which would be very outclassed in quality, but could do some damage in shear numbers. The bases we have offshore are better in regard to China, IMO, and lend thenselves to acting in concert with one of our most powerful weapons... the carrier battle groups of the US Navy, any one of which is cause for concern to most regional powers, in firepower, and we have a dozen of them.

Our bases are in SK to protect our ally from the North, and to protect our interests there, not to be any kind of a threat to China, IMO. Those assets are over the horizon.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Doesn't matter - the fact is the historical precedent is there no matter how you wish to rationalize it away.

We can say based on the precedent, China would very well invade Taiwan if Taiwan did not have U.S. clout behind it.

 

We don't have to bring up precedent, NewYorker... the PRC has said they will invade Taiwan if they declare independence. Their "rattling of the saber," several times, including what I consider to be the juvenile act of shooting missiles towards the island at one point, their buildup of massive numbers of missiles pointed at Taiwan, their aquiring of weapons to both take out Taiwan's military and attempt to make the US think twice about intervention... it all points to an intent to invade and occupy Taiwan if she declares independence.

Taiwan would be nuts to do so. They both need to work towards closer relations, not confrontation.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

If you go by this assinine logic of "historical precedent" and ignore important facts, newdevelopments and differences, you could claim anything no matter how ridiculous simply because it happened before. Based on "historical precedent", we could say that Japan would invade Asia again, Germany would try to take over Europe, the US is going to march into Mexico City and take over more Mexican land, Russia will invade Afghanistan, etc etc.

Of course it would be absurd to make these or similar claims based solely on "historical precedent" because so much has changed since these things took place and the situation now is so much different than before.

China does not have the capability to easily invade Taiwan like it did with Tibet. Taiwan is more populated, more well armed and has recognition both official and unofficial than Tibet ever did (i.e. none). As Taiwan is itself important in the development of China any war would have costly consequences even if we considered that the U.S. would just stay out of such a war. None of these things were the case with respect to Tibet. In 1950, China had everything to gain and nothing to lose by asserting its claims to every territory not already conceded. In 2006, China has everything to lose but nothing to gain from attacking Taiwan first.

There is simply no way that China would launch an unprovoked war of aggression against Taiwan unless Taiwan declared independence first.

So if all your going to go by is "historical precedent" and just ignore these facts, then that's just not a convincing case. Why would the leaders of the Chinese govt launch an aggressive war against Taiwan would so much to lose?

 

I agree....all the military activities intimidating Taiwan is to prevent it from declaring independence, I think China want to avoid military confrontation. Especially right now...during China's economical growth. Even if war does start, I will very doubt that US would actually intervene. I think that US will try to prevent the war, but when it breaks out, US will pull out. China is one of USA's main commercial partners, also is the largest economical market in the world, adding in the fact that it still have large potential, US would not want to loose this trading partner.

 

1. How would you rate the likelihood of the scenario of China invading Japan relative to the scenarios of Japan invading China?
   
   
2. How would you rate the likelihood of the scenario of Japan attacking Chinese shipping as an offensive military action relative to China attacking Japanese shipping as an offensive military action?

Please this question is directed at Deckard. If he chooses not to respond I frankly don't care what you who are not Deckard have to say on the subject. Replicant opinions only.

As far as the relevance of replicant opinions relative to normal human opinions what with the falsed memories, I think that might make a nice offshoot of New Yorker's thread, something like "How do replicants judge?". Options should be included for those replicants who are able to pass the Voight-Kampff test and those who are not.

 

You still don't get it, do you? I explained the relationships between Taiwan and Mainland to you. There were many better chances to take it by force, but Chinese didn't. Even Mao gave up that idea. That, was the historical event I meant. All you can do is to throw Tibet into any discussion. Besides, check your history book again. In 1950, PLA entered Tibet without using force or fight. New Yorker, can you just ONCE, stay on topic? I won't hold my breath though.

 

First off, I have to say that Ridley and I have a bit of a disagreement. He has decided, after the fact, so to speak, that I am in fact a replicant. My fans are deeply divided about this, with one large faction believing I am human, and another large faction believing I am not. And, as is usual in these kinds of heated discussions, there is the undecided middle. As for myself, I feel human. I function, as best I can tell, as a human... ergo, I choose to believe I am human, and master of my domain.

Having dealt with that issue, I'll turn to your scenarios.

1. How would you rate the likelihood of the scenario of China invading Japan relative to the scenarios of Japan invading China?

If I am forced to have an opinion one way or another, then I would have to say that the likelihood of China invading Japan would be greater than Japan invading China. Japan makes better cars, and all those cool electronic gizmos. China, as Japan found out already, is far too big to digest. Japan, on the other hand, is a fairly small country.

2. How would you rate the likelihood of the scenario of Japan attacking Chinese shipping as an offensive military action relative to China attacking Japanese shipping as an offensive military action?

I would rate the likelihood of Japan attacking Chinese shipping as greater than China attacking Japan's shipping. Japan is an island nation, with a long naval tradition, equipped with the best naval technology in the world... made in the USA. If a conflict were to break out, Japan would immediately attack China's shipping, and do it successfully, as she would successfully defend herself from a Chinese invasion attempt.

I'd like to add that I think the possibility of either scenario happening is almost nil. The only scenario I can see that would bring Japan into conflict with China would be if China attacked Taiwan in an invasion attempt, and the US decided to intervene. That could very well pull Japan into the conflict, whether she wanted to be or not.

I don't see that happening, either, but it's more likely than any Chinese invasion of Japan, in my opinion.



Satisfied??



Keep D&D Civil.

 

So Deckerd, in your opinion China is more likely to attack Japan than the other way around, despite the fact that China has never done so in the history while Japan has done it twice (if you don't count minor ones) and occupied a good part of of China (including Taiwan) for years. Very interesting thought.

 

Remember, I was asked my opinion, and I said I thought both questions were highly unlikely, with the second question slightly less so, but still very unlikely. Don't go off on a tangent and read something into my post that isn't there. My reply wasn't based on China's history of aggression, or lack of it. I'll add that in the "real world," of military planning, they try to "game," every possible scenario, no matter how unlikely, so that if the unlikely, or near impossible should occur, they can pull that plan off the shelf and know what to do. And that would include the PRC military.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

They're just questions, Deckard. In answer to your query they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response....


Shall we continue?

 

Several points for consideration:

1.The need for self defense is enough to justify buidling an big and advanced army relative to a country's size.

2.China considers attacking Taiwan upon its declaration of independance as self defense against attempts to split her land, deny her territorial rights and hurt her sovereignty. As we speak, China's territorial rights over Taiwan are acknowledged by the members of the UN, including the USA.

3.As for incentives to invade other countries, such as Japan, keep in mind that the Chinese government faces many domestic problems which can only be sovled by developing economy, and due to China's unique situation, economical development must rely on foreign trades. The USA and Japan are two of the biggest trading partners of China.

China has 1.2 billion poorly educated people to feed, is trying to establish social welfare system for 1.3 billion people, must keep the level of living standard and employment rate high enough to alleviate social unrest, must move half a billion of poor and uneducated farmers from villages to town or cities(China has little land per farmer, hard to raise their living standard much by developing agriculture). Each of these problems rises at the magnitude unseen before, and only grand sums of money can solve these issues. The astronomical modern war expense immediately cuts into China's strained resources and negatively impact China foreign relations, trades and economical development.

 

The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves while wiser people are so full of doubt. Two things are infinite; the Universe and human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the Universe. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Continue.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Nice.

 

Aristotle.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Yup, if Taiwan declared indpendence, China would immediately invade.

So for those who argue that China doesn't have the capability - clearly they don't take thier own PRC statements seriously.

 

How can you invade your own territory? US also acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China, as all countries in the world (except a few island sized ones in Pacific Oceans and Latin America).

You cannot invade your own turf. That is the bottomline.