China geopolitics

[Hildegard]

That depends how you look at air combat. The Chinese may well feel that if their AAMs are not abl to engage US aircraft in the face of ECM and so on, that whonking things with a cannon is pretty smart. That delta tail should make the turning circle superior to an F-14/F-16. Or rather, I'd imagine it would.

 

The age of who's got a better cannon is over. Everything is about 'fly by wire' and the winner is the one who gets the missile lock first. That simple yet complicated to achieve.

[Walsingham]

That depends how you look at air combat. The Chinese may well feel that if their AAMs are not abl to engage US aircraft in the face of ECM and so on, that whonking things with a cannon is pretty smart. That delta tail should make the turning circle superior to an F-14/F-16. Or rather, I'd imagine it would.

 

The age of who's got a better cannon is over. Everything is about 'fly by wire' and the winner is the one who gets the missile lock first. That simple yet complicated to achieve.

 

 

I know what you mean. However, if one mungs up the missile locking - for example - by dumping lots of energy into the correct spectrum then what are you left with? A shoe on the end of a pole?

[Nick_i_am]

On the other hand Missle expencive, guns cheap. China might be adopting air doctrines that make use of that fact.

[Humodour]

No baiting, I assure you, just answering the question. China has said openly it will attack Taiwan should the island pursue formal independence - I believe it even has a law requiring it to.

 

They've also determined that they will invade Taiwan if it isn't fully part of China by 2020.

 

They've amended their laws to legalise force (read: violence) in the subjugation of Taiwan, too. Their justification was some sort of claim of maintaining political stability. Which, funnily, is the same excuse they used in the Tainanman Square massacres.

[Azarkon]

And in both cases, they're likely correct - political stability is at stake, regardless of whether outside observers believe it or not. This is because the PRC's hold on China is based on the dream of a unified China, which is to say, a China consisting of its historical territories. If they fail to maintain this vision, which they've been trumping for the last fifty-some years, they will likely lose political legitimacy - as having lied to the people.

 

What many people misunderstand about China is that it is not, at all, a country by the strictest definition of the term, which is to say a polity defined by a common language, ethnicity, and culture. China has ~56 ethnic minorities that have all traditionally held more land than the Chinese majority (Han Chinese), and who have historically been ruled by the Chinese Empire, which maintained stability in an area that would otherwise be wracked by endless border wars between different ethnic groups. If each of these minorities were to rise up, demand independence, and obtain it, China would cease to exist - and you'd have some ~1.2 billion people squeezed into a country the size of Australia, surrounded by nations rich in natural resources & unstable borders. The Chinese will never allow this. They will wage total war to preserve their hold on China's current territories. The alternative, after all, is national annihilation.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Azarkon

[Hurlshort]

The Tibet protests will shine an interesting light on how seriously hard line China still is. Over the last decade they've become increasingly capitalistic and I don't think they have any urge to jeopardize their standing in the world economy. This is really a battle between business and policy within the country. The next couple weeks could signal a major change for China, for better or worse.

[Azarkon]

True, but economics and stability are intertwined. By maintaining control and crushing dissent, China makes itself a better investment target because you can be sure that the government will protect your interests - whereas that wouldn't be true if protesters and rioters are burning shops and disrupting work day in and day out. A second "people's revolution" would send China straight back to the dark ages in terms of its attractiveness to foreign investment.

 

Consequently, I find some of the "Western political" responses absolutely shameless. Nancy Pelosi calling for the world to "denounce China" for its suppression of the (now widely acknowledged to be violent) riots/protests sounds incredibly hollow. What, you think the US would've tolerated people going around burning businesses, attacking shop keepers, and sticking Mexican flags on government buildings? If the particular use of force, in this case, seems excessive, say that - but don't pretend that it would've been "right" to let the riots go unchecked until all of Southwestern China is burning.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Azarkon

[Brdavs]

The age of who's got a better cannon is over. Everything is about 'fly by wire' and the winner is the one who gets the missile lock first. That simple yet complicated to achieve.

 

Actually whispers are that the whole missle from XY miles away and then run approach isn`t exactly the 2nd coming of Jesus it was touted to be and dogfigting is not quite dead...

[Humodour]

And in both cases, they're likely correct - political stability is at stake, regardless of whether outside observers believe it or not. This is because the PRC's hold on China is based on the dream of a unified China, which is to say, a China consisting of its historical territories. If they fail to maintain this vision, which they've been trumping for the last fifty-some years, they will likely lose political legitimacy - as having lied to the people.

 

It is so much more important than human lives.

[Azarkon]

Throughout history, politics have always been more important than human lives. Is it right? No - but it's the way things are.

 

But if you're worried about human lives, the status quo of Taiwan is the one most likely to save them. China will not invade if Taiwan does not declare independence. If anything, China is prepared to offer the "Hong Kong" package to the Taiwanese - one country, two systems, no questions asked. On the other hand, if Taiwan declares independence, human lives are likely to be lost - on the side of China, on the side of Taiwan, and perhaps even on the side of the US.

[Walsingham]

True, but economics and stability are intertwined. By maintaining control and crushing dissent, China makes itself a better investment target because you can be sure that the government will protect your interests - whereas that wouldn't be true if protesters and rioters are burning shops and disrupting work day in and day out. A second "people's revolution" would send China straight back to the dark ages in terms of its attractiveness to foreign investment.

 

Consequently, I find some of the "Western political" responses absolutely shameless. Nancy Pelosi calling for the world to "denounce China" for its suppression of the (now widely acknowledged to be violent) riots/protests sounds incredibly hollow. What, you think the US would've tolerated people going around burning businesses, attacking shop keepers, and sticking Mexican flags on government buildings? If the particular use of force, in this case, seems excessive, say that - but don't pretend that it would've been "right" to let the riots go unchecked until all of Southwestern China is burning.

 

You argue well, as usual. However:

1. Tibet was forcibly occupied in 1951 after a fully fledged war; at the same time as they were invading South Korea. To make teh sisue comparable, you'd have to be talking about what would happen if Mexico had been in invaded in 1950 and had been repeatedly attempting independence.

 

2. The civil power, any civil power, is obliged to use minimum force against its own citizens, even in defence of its national identity. Even one or two dead is quite a lot in such circumstances. However, the Chinese government/military seems baffled by this principle, viz Tianenmen.

 

3. As you yourself say, China is not a single polity, but an Empire. Yet you argue as if this entitled them to behave as if they were a single polity. By that rationale surely the British Empire could be cheerfully reimposed?

[Humodour]

Throughout history, politics have always been more important than human lives. Is it right? No - but it's the way things are.

 

Ha! That's one huge sweeping claim. Care to back it up? The politics of the West tends to be about saving and improving human lives in its respective country. But hey, just another benefit of democracy; people governing politics, not politics governing people.

 

But if you're worried about human lives, the status quo of Taiwan is the one most likely to save them.

 

Only because China would butcher the Taiwanese if they tried to become independent.

 

Even so, China has constantly expressed its dissatisfaction with the status quo, and as I said IIRC the current deadline for full integration of Taiwan peacefully is 2020.

 

Thus either way China plans to do away with human lives to add yet another limb to its already grotesque figure.

[Sand]

I just want to go on the record and state that I hate the Chinese government.

[Walsingham]

I just want to go on the record and state that I hate the Chinese government.

 

You'd hate Tiny Tim if you thought it would annoy me.

[Moatilliatta]

Consequently, I find some of the "Western political" responses absolutely shameless. Nancy Pelosi calling for the world to "denounce China" for its suppression of the (now widely acknowledged to be violent) riots/protests sounds incredibly hollow. What, you think the US would've tolerated people going around burning businesses, attacking shop keepers, and sticking Mexican flags on government buildings? If the particular use of force, in this case, seems excessive, say that - but don't pretend that it would've been "right" to let the riots go unchecked until all of Southwestern China is burning.

I don't think anyone who is serious about their position (and in their right mind) would argue that china shouldn't put down violent riots. The reason that The West berates China is that China uses force much beyond what The West finds to be minimal force. The reason The West berates China is exemplified in the recent propaganda video that China sent out, wherein they tell us that the military didn't fire their weapons, when in fact they did and it caused great unneeded human suffering, most likely more than China has reported.

 

I just want to go on the record and state that I hate the Chinese government.

This isn't a hearing, you're not gonna get shot if you don't swear allegiance to the The West

What I'm trying to say is that a few arguments would be nice, otherwise your post is worthless.

[Walsingham]

This isn't a hearing, you're not gonna get shot if you don't swear allegiance to the The West

 

More's the pity!

[Azarkon]

You argue well, as usual. However:

1. Tibet was forcibly occupied in 1951 after a fully fledged war; at the same time as they were invading South Korea. To make teh sisue comparable, you'd have to be talking about what would happen if Mexico had been in invaded in 1950 and had been repeatedly attempting independence.

 

2. The civil power, any civil power, is obliged to use minimum force against its own citizens, even in defence of its national identity. Even one or two dead is quite a lot in such circumstances. However, the Chinese government/military seems baffled by this principle, viz Tianenmen.

 

3. As you yourself say, China is not a single polity, but an Empire. Yet you argue as if this entitled them to behave as if they were a single polity. By that rationale surely the British Empire could be cheerfully reimposed?

 

I'm not saying they're entitled to act the way they have. I'm saying they will act the way they have because de-colonization is infinitely harder when political survival is at stake. By the time they pulled out, European governments did not need their colonies to maintain national legitimacy; it's a different story for the Chinese government - if they started granting independence to minority states, they will lose their right to rule.

 

The important thing to understand is that China is an empire that is trying to become a nation, not the other way around: historically, there has never been a "China" that is not the "Chinese empire." China is its empire; unlike the British Empire, there is no "Britain" at the center of it all. Beijing is not and has never been the "homeland." It is an imperial seat, occupied by various dynasties and peoples as they took up the mantle of the Chinese Empire.

 

There are potential ethnic national states (similar in form to Japan, Korea, etc.) that can emerge should the Chinese Empire fall. But if so, these states will be carved out of blood, and their borders will not be stable for decades, if not centuries. The only political entity in continental East Asia that has ever been stable is the Chinese Empire. This is the reason why many people, including an overwhelming majority of Chinese, believe that the iron hand of the PRC, however brutal, is for the greater good.

[Azarkon]

Ha! That's one huge sweeping claim. Care to back it up? The politics of the West tends to be about saving and improving human lives in its respective country. But hey, just another benefit of democracy; people governing politics, not politics governing people.

 

Is that why the West fought two devastating World Wars that nearly destroyed the world? Is that why the US went into Iraq, leading to a humanitarian crisis that rivals Saddam's ethnic cleansing? Politics have always trumped human lives. Few governments ever hesitated to make war when it is within their perceived interests to do so.

 

Only because China would butcher the Taiwanese if they tried to become independent.

 

Even so, China has constantly expressed its dissatisfaction with the status quo, and as I said IIRC the current deadline for full integration of Taiwan peacefully is 2020.

 

Thus either way China plans to do away with human lives to add yet another limb to its already grotesque figure.

 

I don't think such a deadline exists. It maybe what the PRC projects will happen (based on their understanding of Taiwanese politics, economic dependence, etc.), but I doubt they've made commitments to make war if Taiwan doesn't integrate by 2020.

 

This is especially true now that the PRC's favored candidate, Ma Yeo-Jing (sp?), triumphed with a landslide victory in Taiwan's presidential elections.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

Ha! That's one huge sweeping claim. Care to back it up? The politics of the West tends to be about saving and improving human lives in its respective country. But hey, just another benefit of democracy; people governing politics, not politics governing people.

 

Is that why the West fought two devastating World Wars that nearly destroyed the world? Is that why the US went into Iraq, leading to a humanitarian crisis that rivals Saddam's ethnic cleansing? Politics have always trumped human lives. Few governments ever hesitated to make war when it is within their perceived interests to do so.

 

 

 

Yet at the same time democracy, not slave revolt freed our slaves, emancipated women, gave us trade unions, socialised healthcare, travel to other heavenly bodies... What has the benighted undemocratic world done in the same timeframe to advance human good?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

A new chinese fighter would be nice, russia and the US havn't been doing anything on that front recently.

 

Check out the new j-10.

 

Some of the MIGs were decent fighters, but I don't know about the j-10 - if it was designed to face the F-16 and F-18, I wonder how it would do against something like the F-22.

[Azarkon]

That seems irrelevant to what I said, Walsh. Democracy has certainly got major advantages as a political system, particularly in observance of human rights. But politics still trumphs human lives - and democracies are still led into devastating wars for the sake of political interests.

 

European imperialism brought tremendous change - what most would call progress - to the known world. But it came at great costs to human lives and dignities, and was carried out by democratic governments.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Azarkon

[Moatilliatta]

Ha! That's one huge sweeping claim. Care to back it up? The politics of the West tends to be about saving and improving human lives in its respective country. But hey, just another benefit of democracy; people governing politics, not politics governing people.

 

Is that why the West fought two devastating World Wars that nearly destroyed the world? Is that why the US went into Iraq, leading to a humanitarian crisis that rivals Saddam's ethnic cleansing? Politics have always trumped human lives. Few governments ever hesitated to make war when it is within their perceived interests to do so.

One war is 50 years old and something that the germans are still ashamed over. The second point isn't very good because the USA themselves have proved how stupid it is for a western nation to start an agressive war, unless you're thinking that the USA are doing very well at the moment when it comes to political and economic stability. I will agree that Krezack is wrong, but so are you Politics doesn't come before human lives in the west, but that doesn't mean that the west won't go to war. It is much more murky than any of you are suggesting.

 

European imperialism brought tremendous change - what most would call progress - to the known world. But it came at great costs to human lives and dignities, and was carried out by democratic governments.

And few people in the west would want to do that again.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Azarkon]

One war is 50 years old and something that the germans are still ashamed over. The second point isn't very good because the USA themselves have proved how stupid it is for a western nation to start an agressive war, unless you're thinking that the USA are doing very well at the moment when it comes to political and economic stability. I will agree that Krezack is wrong, but so are you Politics doesn't come before human lives in the west, but that doesn't mean that the west won't go to war. It is much more murky than any of you are suggesting.

 

Going to war over political ends is the very definition of putting politics above human lives. It maybe that it's a stupid idea and shameful - but the fact remains that politics, and in particular geopolitics, has always been a bloody affair largely indifferent to the suffering that it costs.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Azarkon

[Hildegard]

I know what you mean. However, if one mungs up the missile locking - for example - by dumping lots of energy into the correct spectrum then what are you left with? A shoe on the end of a pole?

 

You talking about countermeasures?

[Walsingham]

I know what you mean. However, if one mungs up the missile locking - for example - by dumping lots of energy into the correct spectrum then what are you left with? A shoe on the end of a pole?

 

You talking about countermeasures?

 

I was, and I really ought to have made more clear that my query was made with due humility. I don't know a great deal about air warfare. Which is not to say I know nothing.

 

Azarkon, you are quite correct to say geopolitics is a bloody business. When people from even tiny counttries have a go at Great Britain I am at pains to point out that no country has ever prevented blood staining its hands. However, to extend the metaphor, simply because an amputation involves blood-loss does not mean a surgeon cannot be criticised for splashing it about like champagne!