Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I really should be concerned about all the ignorance in this thread

Its good to see you doing your part ot increase it vastly, thought

[Drake Tungsten]

That was a poor comeback, GePap, even for you...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
N, they aren't the mina traidng partner of Russia or India, thoguth those two states are more likely not to just accept some US lead grand coolition.

It would be interesting to see how Russia would react to the Chinese expanding their influence in central Asia. It's a logical thing for the Chinese to do since that region has a fair amount of oil and the Chinese have little oil. India has territorial disputes and they've fought two border wars since the 1950's plus I believe those two will be busy seeing who can be the big guy in Asia over the next century.

If China had some good diplomacy and if the US was lead by a George Bush type who excelled at pissing people off then a Chinese Bismark could pretty easily prevent the creation of a anti-Chinese defense alliance. One hopes the US, Japan, Korea, and all would be a bit more on the ball then that though.

The likely next big trouble spots with China will be either Taiwan or the collapse of North Korea. The Chinese would likely intervine in North Korea to prevent the South Koreans (and by extension the US) getting closer to their border.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


China actually has a number of outstanding territorial disputes. Taiwan is the biggest but they still haven't agreed with Vietnam over the border, India and China have fought border wars over sections of Kashmire (1/4 is Chinese occupied), Burma/China have border disputes, Russia and China still haven't agreed to a final border in the Amur river area, and about a half dozen states all Claim the Spraitleys. So there are potential conflicts which could case wars.

Well, Burma has strong relations with China. India and China are trying to work out their differences, thoguht the prospects of some grand US-INdia allience seem dim as long as we back India's biggest enemy, much like China.

The Russians are centainly afraid of China, but that does not stop them selling weapons to China. Russia can always play the nuclear car to stop any actual aggression northward.

The south China sea issue was already mentioned- but as China grows, its not like any resources found there won;t end up in Chinese hands anyways.

[Dinner]

Drake: It appears you are right. In purchasing power parity figures China spent $65B, Russia $50B, France $46.5B, Japan $44.7B, Germany $38.8B, UK $31.7B, Italy $20.2B, Saudi Arabia $18.3B, South Korea $16.8B.

The US spent a total of $466B in 2004 with total world wide military spending being at $950B. That means 49% of all military spending in the world is by the US. We are not getting value for our money.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

[Whoha]

Everyone keeps forgetting about Tibet.

Freedom of the seas is one thing that our military does Gepap. Is protecting Ten Trillion dollars in trade annually from pirates worth what we spend on it?

What about having in excess of 1 million gallons of water generation less then a day away from any disaster zone?

How about the fact that we recognize that war is a distinct possibility and prepare for it, how much is that worth? How much would it have been worth to us right before both WW1 and WW2?

[Agathon]

Everyone keeps forgetting about Tibet.

I don't.

You have a weak country smack between two enemies. Do the math.

[Dinner]

Preparing for logical and reasonablely likely wars is one thing. Spending more then every other country COMBINED in the world is just wasteful.

(OK, we are only at 49% of total military spending but Bush wants to slather on still more corporate welfare this year.)

[Whoha]

We don't spend more then other countries a percentage of GDP, or that number also applies to our social spending, foreign aid(from non-govt and govt),etc.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
Everyone keeps forgetting about Tibet.

What about Tibet? The fact that in 1949 China took it and every single other state recognizes those territories as Chinese?

Freedom of the seas is one thing that our military does Gepap. Is protecting Ten Trillion dollars in trade annually from pirates worth what we spend on it?

So? Anyone with a good blue water navy will protect trade- if China has a huge blue water navy IT would protect international trade.

What about having in excess of 1 million gallons of water generation less then a day away from any disaster zone?

Again, so what? This is a factor of us being the only ones spending the money to have said capability- what does this have to do with say someone else having this capability? Would not the world be better if more than one state coulod provide this?

How about the fact that we recognize that war is a distinct possibility and prepare for it, how much is that worth? How much would it have been worth to us right before both WW1 and WW2?

So? Given how much more China suffered during WW2, maybe currently they are getting prepared.

I don;t even get the point of your post- the OP blather about how terrible it is that China is modernizing their military, and opines that this is unnecessary and thus shows inherent aggressive and beligerrant tendecies. Well, everything you have posted would be a banner reason for China to modernize it military- to protect is growing trade, to have the ability to project power and give it extra diplomatic options, and to protect its territorial integrity.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha
We don't spend more then other countries a percentage of GDP, or that number also applies to our social spending, foreign aid(from non-govt and govt),etc.

Well, we spend more of our GDP on the military than any other G8 member, by close to 1% point.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whoha
We don't spend more then other countries a percentage of GDP, or that number also applies to our social spending, foreign aid(from non-govt and govt),etc.

Actually we do spend more as a percentage of GDP then most European countries or Japan. Not that really matters because I'm speaking about of all the money which every country in the world spends upon their militaries we have 49% of that total.

I think most people will agree that is excessive and unnecissary. By dropping a few obvious corporate welfare projects (the $200 billion star wars program, the crappy styker which doesn't even fill the role it is designed to fill, the XM-8 rifle which is heavier & more expensive & less accurate then the M-16 it replaces, one of the three fighter planes, one of the three tracked APCs, and various other things) we could easily bring that 49% figure down to around 33% without sacrificing quality. Instead we simply get ride of diplicate designs and buy each remaining design in higher quantity thus lowering costs.

This is just common sense especialy since Bush has created a $420 billion deficit monster which we must deal with.

[Agathon]

Is it totally inconceivable that the Chinese might actually be friendly people?

Oerdin. Will you answer my questions above? Do you think that China is heading in the right direction overall or not?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap
blah blah blah totally irrelvant to what was posted.

I never said China in my post. You asked why the US would want such things, and obviously those arguments apply to China as well. China has every right to buy the arms, But we in the US need to realize that Europe is increasing not our ally or our friend. You said they don't give a **** about our position in the Pacific? so then why, for example, should we give a **** about their position in the Ivory Coast?

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is just common sense especialy since Bush has created a $420 billion deficit monster which we must deal with.

the deficit number is actually much higher due to the SS money that will have to be paid back out. even cutting the military budget to zero doesn't cover the problem. It will merely delay the day of reckoning. I agree that cuts can be made, but I consider such cuts trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Another thing to consider, how do you know ahead of time which programs will be flops and which will be worth while?

[Dinner]

There are certain more freedoms in China then 15 years ago but it remains a one party state where the porty keeps total control of all things political. Will economic reforms continue and state industries continue to be privatized? Yep, basic economics says they'll have to to keep up the growth they need to replace the shuttering state industries they're losing and provide jobs for the peasants who are flooding into the cities. Remember it is still illegal for those peasants to move to the cities but they're doing it anyway so they're freer but not legally protected in this freedom.

Either way we are the reason for China's growth (or rather access to western markets, allowing our companies to invest there, and our greed for cheap goods are the reasons) even if we don't want to admite it. There is nothing majorly concrete about China's liberal reforms but their desire to continue to expand trade is a powerful lever we can use to avoid conflict.