|
LimburgLimbo posted:Apparently it was a long-planned training mission. If that's true then presumably they had done similar flights before, and China by all rights should have known that US planes flew through there. I don't know what their game is, but they're coming off as pretty stupid. I think what China really meant to have is a "Everyone allowed except Japan" zone.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I think what China really meant to have is a "Everyone allowed except Japan" zone. But since they obviously can't and did not say that, it's for everyone. It was a really petty move in either case. I'm pretty amused and glad that the US did this "give no fucks" flyover. China needs to cool the hell off or else my thinking that they will be the 21st Century's Germany will be more disturbingly true than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Yureina posted:or else my thinking that they will be the 21st Century's Germany will be more disturbingly true than I thought.  Do you think China is about to embark on a few wars of conquest or something? I do -not- get this China paranoia stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
How are u posted:
Actually the comparison to 21st century Germany isn't totally apt, but there are some similarities. 21st century Germany was an emergent world power (or at least regional) that was hemmed in by the existing world power (Britain) and its neighbors (France, blah blah). There were a lot of existing political tensions that don't exist now with China, but Germany didn't go on psycho killing sprees because they were insane maniacs. They were geopolitically hemmed in, and they wanted to 'break out' and become a world power. China kind of has the same thing going on with America being the existing world power, and being hemmed in by Japan, India, S. Korea, and Philippines, etc... This these crazy rear end struggles over tiny islands is China just trying to flex its muscle, break out and be a world power. I'm not saying it's going to be WWIII, but it's not as bad a comparison as you would think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
How are u posted:
Not exactly what I meant. Before everyone's favorite guy with a small moustache there was a different guy, Wilhelm II. He talked lot about "a place in the sun" and making Germany a world power. In polite circles he made it sound as if this was Germany merely trying to catch up after centuries of disunity. Everywhere else however, he was blustering, extremely aggressive, and completely tactless. It all greatly contributed to the outbreak of WW1. Xi Jinping is starting to remind me of that, or if not him then the fiery nationalism within China that wants its "rightful place" certainly does. Aggressive moves that lead to a tense situation that could explode at any moment. So no, not wars of conquest, though China certainly has done plenty of those in the past otherwise they would have less than half of the land they have today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
The only thing China needs to do to move from "rising world power" to "world power" is grow its middle class. They don't need to 'break out' anywhere when they have 1.3 billion citizens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
How are u posted:The only thing China needs to do to move from "rising world power" to "world power" is grow its middle class. They don't need to 'break out' anywhere when they have 1.3 billion citizens. Tell them that. They don't buy it due to the "century of humiliation" narrative which creates a desire for avenging that by "seeking their rightful place" as the world's greatest power. If they were just following what you suggest, I wouldn't be nervous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
I'm a little concerned as to what they believe their rightful place is, especially when they share a border with a similarly-sized country with a similar population and demographic with similar desires to regain former glories, real or imagined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
How are u posted:The only thing China needs to do to move from "rising world power" to "world power" is grow its middle class. They don't need to 'break out' anywhere when they have 1.3 billion citizens. Size helps, but isn't everything. Players who want to hem China in can form systems of alliances that can try to counter its size and rising influences. In other words, one country can't contain China's size and emergent middle class, but a system of alliances can gang up on them and use their combined military/economic power to prevent a rise in China's influence. In that scenario, China would have to 'break out'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
They can't really "break out" militarily now that nukes are a thing though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:They can't really "break out" militarily now that nukes are a thing though. Yeah, you're right 19th century rules don't apply here, and I don't know where I was going with that. But you know what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
It seems to me that China's method of "breaking out" is economic. They want to surpass the US as the world's foremost economic power. I dunno if that's really possible though, considering the US got where it did by integrating its own economy to the world's to such a degree that they're basically the same. That's the kind of thing that only really works the first time someone does it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It seems to me that China's method of "breaking out" is economic. They want to surpass the US as the world's foremost economic power. I dunno if that's really possible though, considering the US got where it did by integrating its own economy to the world's to such a degree that they're basically the same. That's the kind of thing that only really works the first time someone does it. Can't China just get that power by having the world's largest GDP and then controlling access to its markets?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Can't China just get that power by having the world's largest GDP and then controlling access to its markets? Not really. They're so heavily dependent on exports that they can't just go and make demands under threat of withholding cheap consumer goods without their own economy taking a massive hit. And even if their GDP passes the US, people aren't likely to believe the numbers anyways since as it stands everyone assumes all the economic data coming out of China has been crooked as poo poo for decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Well yeah that's why I said they're attempting to transition out of a heavily export based economy. China got hit pretty hard in 07-09 if you'll remember, it shook the leadership up that's for sure. Going from an export growth rate of around 25% to negative 1.65% over the course of a year and a half when your entire economy is based on exports is a big wake-up call. Sure the Party is corrupt and cumbersome, but they're not idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Not really. They're so heavily dependent on exports that they can't just go and make demands under threat of withholding cheap consumer goods without their own economy taking a massive hit. And again, it's easy to be the world's largest economy if you brute force it by having 1.5 billion people. The US would still have 3-4 times higher per capita rates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Can't China just get that power by having the world's largest GDP and then controlling access to its markets? Well, yes. Power, both soft and hard, ultimately depends on economic strength. If China does become the world's biggest economy, they'll have the options of peaceful global dominance, using economic and cultural levers, or not-so-peaceful dominance, using their superior cash and industrial base to build up a military that outclasses that of the United States. (Or they could send a colony-ship to Alpha Centuri and win a space victory, I suppose...)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Not really, at least in the conceivable future. China is advancing but they're still leagues behind the US and the rest of the developed world both educationally and scientifically/ technologically. The reference is cute, but real life isn't Civ. You can't just buy your way to the top. And that's discounting corruption blahblah etc And yeah I don't think there'll be armed conflict for a long while, over this or even perhaps more overt posturing, but it's hardly unprecedented and I don't think it's funny to joke about. Maybe I just don't have a sense of humour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
How are u posted:Well yeah that's why I said they're attempting to transition out of a heavily export based economy. China got hit pretty hard in 07-09 if you'll remember, it shook the leadership up that's for sure. Going from an export growth rate of around 25% to negative 1.65% over the course of a year and a half when your entire economy is based on exports is a big wake-up call. Sure the Party is corrupt and cumbersome, but they're not idiots. I'm not so sure about that. The massive societal changes needed to help China develop a large middle class, a white collar services sector of the economy are essentially impossible given the levels of corruption and stagnant state of Chinese bureaucracy. It's come up in threads discussing China how ingrained the culture of graft is. Paying extra for the local government to do what they're supposed to is business as usual to most people. Someone came into this thread trying to point how how effective the 'grey market' is for getting things done (if you have the money) and how as a cultural tradition is an equally valid method commerce. Cheap consumer goods for the most part have a simple manufacturing process, and China's incredibly lax oversight and regulation don't really matter when making colored plastic or cheap electronics. When you start moving on to things that require a much more significant degree of precision that lack of QC really starts to impact the safety of the product. The milk powder scandal is 5 years old and the Chinese population still don't trust domestic manufacturers of the product. Foxconn has figured out how to make high end consumer electronics for export, but only by creating a factory town/city and controlling every aspect of its workers' lives to the point where they put up nets to try and stop suicide attempts. I don't know if that model can be rolled out across China with the same level of production and success, given that everything made in Foxconn is exported overseas and generally not for domestic consumption.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
I'd say China has a pretty good chance of developing into a service based economy but it's probably going to follow the same timeframe as the US (minus the gigantic wars). e: I mean has China hit its first major panic post-Mao yet? That will be a pretty telling part of how the direction of the country goes. computer parts fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:Well, yes. Power, both soft and hard, ultimately depends on economic strength. If China does become the world's biggest economy, they'll have the options of peaceful global dominance, using economic and cultural levers, or not-so-peaceful dominance, using their superior cash and industrial base to build up a military that outclasses that of the United States. The problem with scenario A is that China doesn't have a culture that's conducive to exportation. Chinese culture is heavily conservative, heavily reliant on racial and national unity, and not particularly cosmopolitan. For example: Anyone can become American just by having papers from the US government that says they're American. You will never be considered "Chinese" without being an ethnic Chinese born on mainland China with a Chinese ancestry. An exclusionary culture is near impossible to export. Scenario B doesn't really work because building a military is more complex than "I have X amount of gold, therefore I can build Y amount of tanks and battleships" and having a massive population can be actively detrimental in addition to being beneficial, as more people in general means more people that you need to support with money. Not to mention that if and when an epidemic occurs (and we're overdue for one) or when climate change starts to affect food supply it's the high population, high density places that are going to be hit hardest. In addition, China is currently really, really bad at playing the diplomatic game. Like super bad. They've been constantly antagonizing their neighbours, threatening them, attempting to bully them, and doing absolutely nothing to win them over. I can name two events that occurred even in the past month where the US made China look like fools simply because China cocked up basic diplomacy so bad (This Senkaku islands flyover and China giving the Philippines the middle-finger after Haiyan while the US supplied tens of millions in aid and military assistance.) "Speak softly and carry a big stick" still applies today and currently China is only carrying a moderate-sized stick and screaming at everyone. And also, technological and scientific innovation is at odds with the Confucian traditions that still permeate China's education systems, huge amounts of corruption and cooking the books, etc. China is most certainly a great power and I would say it's already a world power, but largely because China's brute-forced it with a population of 1.5 billion. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Anyways, back to the fly-over Defying China, U.S. aircraft fly over East China Sea without notification quote:Two U.S. B-52 bombers carried out the flight, part of a long-planned exercise, on Monday night Eastern Standard Time, a U.S. military official said, identifying the type of aircraft on condition of anonymity. I can't imagine a bigger rebuttal then the US directly ignoring every single Chinese declaration about the island. I imagine this isn't making the news in China. There's no mention of it on the front page of the SCMP, instead there's this Air defence zone in East China Sea to remain 'forever', say Beijing advisers quote:Beijing has been planning an air defence zone over the East China Sea for some time and it will stay there "forever", according to foreign policy advisers to the central government. So this makes it sound like they're literally making it a "no Japanese" zone and trying to give themselves an reason to "allow" US military flights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The problem with scenario A is that China doesn't have a culture that's conducive to exportation. Chinese culture is heavily conservative, heavily reliant on racial and national unity, and not particularly cosmopolitan. For example: Anyone can become American just by having papers from the US government that says they're American. You will never be considered "Chinese" without being an ethnic Chinese born on mainland China with a Chinese ancestry. An exclusionary culture is near impossible to export. Agreed. China never will be a cultural exporter, except in the sense that they would want everyone to be like them (while still accepting those who try). This is rather clear in ancient/medieval history where neighboring countries like Japan and Korea were bombarded with China's cultural power and influence, but who in turn were treated as little more than client states that paid tribute to the "middle kingdom", likely planned to eventually be annexed into China one day. Japan, Korea, and others figured this out in time and chose to push their own cultural development instead of having to live in China's shadow with no benefit for themselves. The ones who didn't figure it out in time are currently within Modern China's borders. Population will always ensure China is a major military power of some note, but it is far from a guarantee of greatness. Otherwise they wouldn't have been trampled by the Mongols, Manchus, and British so easily. Innovation and force multipliers are more important than sheer numbers. The so-called kings of zerg tactics, the Russians, understood that and worked on it in their war with the Nazis, leading to some impressive feats in the final years of the war (see Operation Bagration). In this regard, China is decades behind the USA and most other developed nations. And diplomacy... it's a joke. The fact that North Korea is China's only ally speaks volumes. People talk about Japan's ugly WW2 legacy as being a diplomatic liability, But China's got centuries of such behavior and its recent actions are refreshing the memories of states that were victims of Chinese imperialism, such as Vietnam. China screams of encirclement when they have only themselves to blame. Also, when it comes to territorial disputes, you can either attempt negotiations or try to use military power to press those claims. Generally speaking, the weaker your claims are the more likely you are to go for military force to settle the issue in your favor. China's claims are garbage and they know it. computer parts posted:e: I mean has China hit its first major panic post-Mao yet? That will be a pretty telling part of how the direction of the country goes. I'd say Tiananmen Square could count for that. Lots of political repression and purges followed the crackdown. A tight hold on power proved to be a higher priority than liberty, and that trend has persisted. How locked up in security that Square became after that incident is a pretty clear indication of how afraid the CCP is of another similar outbreak. pentyne posted:So this makes it sound like they're literally making it a "no Japanese" zone and trying to give themselves an reason to "allow" US military flights. More likely it's just an attempt to save face after having the US just demonstrating what they think of China's new air zone. 
Yureina fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
How are u posted:
You've got your answer in the posts that followed. Here are some of the well-thought out fears: WarpedNaba posted:I'm a little concerned as to what they believe their rightful place is, especially when they share a border with a similarly-sized country with a similar population and demographic with similar desires to regain former glories, real or imagined. China sending troops over the Himalayas to massacre the Indians! Yureina posted:So no, not wars of conquest, though China certainly has done plenty of those in the past otherwise they would have less than half of the land they have today. Imperialism needs air quotes because it's not real! Plus guys I'm not saying China is a warmonger because I can't back that up, but come on... they're gonna do something. And of course with such 19th century ideas we have to revert to orientalism: Fojar38 posted:The problem with scenario A is that China doesn't have a culture that's conducive to exportation. Chinese culture is heavily conservative, heavily reliant on racial and national unity, and not particularly cosmopolitan. For example: Anyone can become American just by having papers from the US government that says they're American. You will never be considered "Chinese" without being an ethnic Chinese born on mainland China with a Chinese ancestry. An exclusionary culture is near impossible to export. Yureina posted:Agreed. China never will be a cultural exporter A large portion of Americans don't even consider their own loving president to be American because he's half black, and yet I don't see Chinese or Indians (or even black Americans) avoiding white American movies and music because they can't relate to whiteness. You've got to come up with something less obviously wrong than that. You know, I don't disagree with the parallel drawn between China and WWI Germany. They're both targets of demagoguery that simultaneously belittles and aggrandizes the foreign threat. China wants to do terrible things to its neighbors, yet their military is a piece of crap and gets trampled by smaller foreign power like Mongolia and Britain (but that's not imperialism because of  ), but they're also super-rich, but don't worry because they got that way only by brute-force, so really China is incompetent and threatening, and by the way did you know everyone currently living in China was subjected by the Chinese in their past?This is how it plays out. When Japan denies Chinese airplanes the right to transit over disputed territory, China is acting petty. When China (tries to) deny Japanese airplanes the right to transit over disputed territory, China is acting petty. When Japan claims an island so far out from its mainland that it's halfway down Fujian latitude-wise, there is no discussion of claims because China made the claims up. And whenever China attempts to counteract the diplomatic influence in its own backyard of a global power halfway around the world, it's viewed as an aggressive upstart. China is really bad at diplomacy, which is why they have to use military force. On the other hand, the suave Americans and Japanese are experts at diplomacy, which is why the first response to an exclusionary air zone is to fly some loving bombers into it. With views like this, how can China possibly be anything but a brooding peril? By the way, if you guys are truly concerned about China, then you should look at India's attempts to undo British influence in the region. Truly terrifying poo poo there, them Indians and their 'colonialism', it's just an excuse for revanchism right? What are they gonna do with their nuclear arsenal and aircraft carriers anyway? I heard there was a rival power of equal population just across the border. And all their wars on Pakistan in the past - where will America base its drones if Pakistan goes down? Plus, no one watches Bollywood movies because the cast is usually all Indian, I mean who can relate to that? I'm worried that India is going to be, if not the Germany, than the Austro-Hungary of the 21st century.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:In addition, China is currently really, really bad at playing the diplomatic game. Like super bad. They've been constantly antagonizing their neighbours, threatening them, attempting to bully them, and doing absolutely nothing to win them over. I can name two events that occurred even in the past month where the US made China look like fools simply because China cocked up basic diplomacy so bad (This Senkaku islands flyover and China giving the Philippines the middle-finger after Haiyan while the US supplied tens of millions in aid and military assistance.) "Speak softly and carry a big stick" still applies today and currently China is only carrying a moderate-sized stick and screaming at everyone. I don't know what this is from but it's pretty crazy. And for the "super bad at diplomacy" thing? Considering that the US was basically handed detente on a plate by the Iranians after 9/11, no questions asked (the Iranians hated the Taliban just as much, if not more, than the US did post 9/11) and threw it away, Chinese diplomacy is only 'bad' because people focus on its failures and discount the fact that literally every other country has such failures of diplomacy. I mean, you're literally mono-manically focusing on a region with literally nothing but constant conflicts and border disputes and saying that doing something other than rolling over is bad diplomacy when your diplomatic goal is to actually get some of what you want. It turns out when everyone is unfriendly to you in the first place winning them over is really hard. The Philippines is a great example, because the Chinese invested a ton of money with fairly generous conditions into the Philippines. The moment their government decided to declare that the disputed territory China had was theirs and China protested? Bam, the Philippines basically instantly decided that China was less trustworthy than North. loving. Korea. Despite all the sweet-talk and the charm offensive, nothing of value was resolved, because the Philippines knew that as long as America post "Asian pivot" would back it in its claims, no matter how dubious, instead of suggesting some form of compromise there was no point in playing any sort of ball with the Chinese. Same with Vietnam and Japan, as long as America's willing to back their claims because they're Not China, they have no reason, ever, to respond to any diplomacy which isn't unconditional surrender. In Africa, where there isn't such a problem of American containment meaning that nobody has any reason to negotiate with China ever, the Chinese image is actually really, really positive and is handily beating out the west. They're willing to treat you like an honored partner instead of an inferior if you're willing to deal, which helps. quote:And also, technological and scientific innovation is at odds with the Confucian traditions that still permeate China's education systems, huge amounts of corruption and cooking the books, etc. A lot of technological and scientific innovation takes place in China, it's just published in US journals alongside US scientists because yes, perception matters. A lot of nanotech developments, for example, are by Chinese scientists. Maybe the Chinese school system turns out less creative thinkers, but it also turns out five times the thinkers, and there's really not that much of a need for 'creativity', as Apple shows. There they had literally what, one creative mastermind and ten thousand guys whose job was to listen to him? Creativity is valuable, but you don't need many creative masterminds to reap its benefits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
flatbus posted:
A lot of people are racists and hate being led by a black man, but we're way past the point when black people are seen as anything other than legitimate citizens of the US (even though they might be seen as having bad ideas).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 01:52
|
|
flatbus posted:A large portion of Americans don't even consider their own loving president to be American because he's half black, and yet I don't see Chinese or Indians (or even black Americans) avoiding white American movies and music because they can't relate to whiteness. You've got to come up with something less obviously wrong than that. What does watching Western media have to do with anything? Why are you trying to frame the argument this way? flatbus posted:When Japan claims an island so far out from its mainland that it's halfway down Fujian latitude-wise, there is no discussion of claims because China made the claims up. century. Treaty of Shimonoseki > Okinawa Reversion Agreement. There are no 'claims' that need to be made by anyone.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Arakan posted:Treaty of Shimonoseki > Okinawa Reversion Agreement. There are no 'claims' that need to be made by anyone. So why doesn't Japan submit the dispute to the ICJ for arbitration? Yes, China isn't a signatory to the binding part of that whole thing, but doing so would put significantly more pressure on China to admit its claims are illegitimate. It's not like Japan is loath to do so, it did exactly that when it had a near-identical dispute with Korea, because it thought it had a strong case (and because it was in Korean hands at the time). No, I'm pretty sure there are 'claims' that need to be made, even if the Japanese party line is "there is no way any reasonable person would ever say that the islands are anything other than Japanese." http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephen...udiaoyu-crisis/ And a Japanese international law professor thinks the Japanese claims are indefensible. Not weak, not 'dubious', indefensible. As in "Japan literally has no claim".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
flatbus posted:
I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but this actually happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War In fact, I remember reading that India first developed nuclear weapons as a deterrent to China. So yeah, there has been some hostility between the two nations in the past.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:A lot of technological and scientific innovation takes place in China, it's just published in US journals alongside US scientists because yes, perception matters. A lot of nanotech developments, for example, are by Chinese scientists. Maybe the Chinese school system turns out less creative thinkers, but it also turns out five times the thinkers, and there's really not that much of a need for 'creativity', as Apple shows. There they had literally what, one creative mastermind and ten thousand guys whose job was to listen to him? Creativity is valuable, but you don't need many creative masterminds to reap its benefits. There's a question of whether or not Chinese schools can even turn out thinkers, or just people fully adapt at plagiarism and cheating. It's really bad when Chinese students first come to a foreign institution and expect to cheat their way through classes. Some adapt to the new system, some don't, but as a general rule GRE scores coming out of China aren't taken as accurate because the vast majority of Chinese students have scores in the 95-99% percentile, which is statistically impossible. There was an actual riot by parents in China when testing monitors came in to try and run the standardized tests without cheating. Some specific research institutes in China do have better reputations but as a whole Chinese research is looked down upon because a shitload of papers coming out of China are either garbage, plagiarism, or outright bs. It's like in the days of Soviet Russia, all the publications coming out were taken with a grain of salt because there was no transparency. None of the Chinese Nobel physics or chemistry winners were conducting research at a Chinese institution, they all worked in the US, UK, France. I can see where Chinese academics working on collaborative research with researchers in other countries and sharing the data back and forth can be regarded as legitimate, but research done solely in China at party-run institutions? That's still considered highly suspect. I know there has been a lot of government investment in wind energy and a huge incentive to do it right and not fake half the data. But then again, like all self reported information about China, there's always a concern over transparency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Lordy Bagordy, who spat in your bubble tea? Lessee here. quote:China sending troops over the Himalayas to massacre the Indians! Musing over the dangers of Ultranationalism and revisionism between two world powers with a rather aggressive approach to diplomacy and contested border disputes = Totally paranoid of a land invasion in Asia starting WW3. Makes perfect sense. quote:Imperialism needs air quotes because it's not real! Plus guys I'm not saying China is a warmonger because I can't back that up, but come on... they're gonna do something. I don't even know where to start with this one. The sheer level of projection could advance hologram tech by at least a generation. quote:
We are not discussing American cultural exportation nor its nuances, but using it as a comparative. When was the last time anyone in the West found a Chinese novel series or a computer game worth playing? How many people outside of the USA have seen Avatar? How many people outside of China have seen Chungking Express? Aside from Wuxia and the occasional Internal Affairs clone, what part of Chinese culture or neo-confucianism in media can cross 20km of a strait? Chinese culture isn't designed, tailored or even fit to be exported in its current form. That will hopefully change, but first you'll need to start going through all the stuff Mao burned to the ground to restore it and find out how flexible it could be. quote:yet their military is a piece of crap and gets trampled by smaller foreign power like Mongolia and Britain (but that's not imperialism because of Their military is a piece of crap. And it did get trampled, either by brute force or by technological superiority. And nobody is saying it wasn't imperialism, although I admit that I doubt anyone outside of Asia knows about the Opium wars or the Boxer rebellion. quote:so really China is incompetent and threatening, and by the way did you know everyone currently living in China was subjected by the Chinese in their past? If 'Good news! We've pissed off every single neighbour up to and including An actual Orwellian Dystopian Despotism in the last 30 years and we ain't slowin' down!' isn't loving incompetent, then I'd hate to see what happens after the next great purge. Oh, and if by 'subjected' you mean 'suppressed', then you don't even need to journey into the past for that one. quote:This is how it plays out. When Japan denies Chinese airplanes the right to transit over disputed territory, China is acting petty. When China (tries to) deny Japanese airplanes the right to transit over disputed territory, China is acting petty. Okay, for my part I will admit that both countries are needlessly aggrevating the other and that the Western media will report in favour of the Western-friendly nation due to obvious bias. However, if you're trying to claim a moral victory here, you'll need to find a PRC publication that isn't insanely impartial on the issue. Thank you kindly. quote:
You, uh, you did read the publication, right? That was a previously planned flight. Routine. Changing a scheduled route due to some nepotistic old colonel barking at a legislator isn't going to happen no matter the circumstances. quote:When Japan claims an island so far out from its mainland that it's halfway down Fujian latitude-wise, there is no discussion of claims because China made the claims up. The fact that China had absolutely no qualms or cares about that island from the moment it was allocated after WW2 until the minute it was discovered to have Can't think of an answer that doesn't boil down to 'We're after money, duh.'? Neither can they. quote:Plus, no one watches Bollywood movies because the cast is usually all Indian, I mean who can relate to that? I'm worried that India is going to be, if not the Germany, than the Austro-Hungary of the 21st century. Exactly. Nobody watches Bollywood movies outside of India. Slumdog Millionaire was a hit not because the Indian demographic panned it due to using every single Bollywood cliche in the book, but because everybody outside of India had never seen a Bollywood movie and found it oddly refreshing. And even after that, people still don't watch Bollywood junk. quote:By the way, if you guys are truly concerned about China, then you should look at India's attempts to undo British influence in the region. Normally I'm one to laugh to an uproar at blatant attempts of redirection and 'But enough about us, they're just as bad!'-isms, but I got suckered into tailoring a rare  post due to some 50c bullshittery. More fool I, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:29
|
|
MJ12 posted:So why doesn't Japan submit the dispute to the ICJ for arbitration? Yes, China isn't a signatory to the binding part of that whole thing, but doing so would put significantly more pressure on China to admit its claims are illegitimate. This guys argument is that the U.S. never gave Japan sovereignty over the islands and only gave them administrative control back. Which means he thinks the U.S. retained sovereignty over the islands.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It seems to me that China's method of "breaking out" is economic. They want to surpass the US as the world's foremost economic power. I dunno if that's really possible though, considering the US got where it did by integrating its own economy to the world's to such a degree that they're basically the same. That's the kind of thing that only really works the first time someone does it. Well you can always rely on bitcoins. It has finally caught with the dumb middle age demographic here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
Arakan posted:This guys argument is that the U.S. never gave Japan sovereignty over the islands and only gave them administrative control back. Which means he thinks the U.S. retained sovereignty over the islands. No, it isn't. It's that as one of the territories Japan took from China, it was implicitly returned to China (or Taiwan) by the treaties Japan signed. Japan was only allowed to retain administrative control over it for the time being. That, and the more important argument was "China was more than happy to leave the dispute for the future, the Japanese nationalization was incompetent no matter how well-meaning and needlessly antagonistic." MJ12 fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Arakan posted:This guys argument is that the U.S. never gave Japan sovereignty over the islands and only gave them administrative control back. Which means he thinks the U.S. retained sovereignty over the islands. Are we reading the same article? He pretty clearly states that the US' position was that the issue of sovereignty was to be worked out between the claimants, not that the US itself has sovereignty over the islands, which makes no sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
flatbus posted:You've got your answer in the posts that followed. Here are some of the well-thought out fears: In short, an air defense interdiction zone (ADIZ) is not exclusionary, and other militaries (such as US/Russia) routinely fly into other country's ADIZ. The long version: There seems to be some confusion over what an air defense interdiction zone (ADIZ) is. It is not exclusionary airspace. Historically, they arose from acknowledging that given the speed of airplanes, a country that waited until unknown approaching airplanes are within their borders to intercept and identify would be too late. A country declaring an ADIZ is asserting that they will intercept unknown planes within it even though they are outside recognized land/sea borders in order to have time to do something if they were indeed hostile. Broadly speaking, flying in someone's ADIZ without filling out the appropriate paperwork is not particularly friendly. In principle, unknown aircraft entering into a ADIZ could be interpreted as hostile and used as justification for shooting down an aircraft. Without other circumstances, this would be ridiculous. (For an example of a similar scenario where extenuating circumstances were judged to exist, the shoot down of Iranian Air 655 occurred 3 months after a US frigate was badly damaged by Iranian mine and 2 months after Operation Preying Mantis, where the US retaliated by sinking several Iranian ships. The aircraft was flying from Iran towards the carrier with a flight profile more similar to a attack run than a airliner for unknown reasons, and it was shot down without visual ID.) That being said, in international airspace military planes are free to fly, including in someone else's ADIZ. You can easily google pictures of F-22s & F-16s intercepting Russian bombers in the Alaskan ADIZ. Not intercepting unknown aircraft in your ADIZ implies either you don't have the resources to back up your claim (embarrassing) or that you don't actually feel that unknown aircraft at that range are a potential threat to you, and thus the ADIZ is unjustified. What will be interesting is what happens when Japan (or even the US from a base in Japan) flies a "routine" training flight into the ADIZ, and whether they follow China's stated procedures (not likely), and if China intercepts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Except for maybe a handful of papers in prestigious journals, most of Chinese science is indeed crap, and most of the scientific community looks at papers out of China with extreme suspicion. The comparison with Russia isn't really accurate because Russian science especially in the physical sciences was always extremely respected. Most of China's cultural exports are indeed crap, and culturally China is pretty xenophobic, inward looking and non-inclusive. But, you have to look at two other cultures that are pretty similar and have a huge cultural impact: Japan and S. Korea. Both cultures are xenophobic, non-inclusive, and have extreme views of racial purity. But their culture is consumed worldwide. In fact, China probably looks at S. Korea as a model for cultural export. WarpedNaba posted:
Chunking Express is a Hong Kong movie which is a way different ball of wax altogether. It was produced when HK was still a British colony and part of the hey-day of HK cinema which was a unique cultural epoch. Hong Kong cinema from that period is indeed well regarded internationally and they punched way above their weight as a city of ~8 million. Sadly, the HK film industry is now losing its way except for a few bright spots here and there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Joe Nuke posted:The aircraft was flying from Iran towards the carrier with a flight profile more similar to a attack run than a airliner for unknown reasons, It was climbing out of Bandar Abbas in a straight line to Dubai in the commercial air corridor designated for this purpose. The "attack run" stuff was fabricated by the Vincennes crew (Aegis missile cruiser, not a carrier). Their own radar logs demonstrated this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 03:57
|
|
MJ12 posted:No, it isn't. It's that as one of the territories Japan took from China, it was implicitly returned to China (or Taiwan) by the treaties Japan signed. Japan was only allowed to retain administrative control over it for the time being. That, and the more important argument was "China was more than happy to leave the dispute for the future, the Japanese nationalization was incompetent no matter how well-meaning and needlessly antagonistic." Which treaty? Potsdam? Why does The Okinawa Reversion Treaty not take precedent over that? The islands were never actually returned to Taiwan or China after Potsdam, they remained in American control until they were handed back to Japan in 1972 under the terms of a new treaty. Paper Mac posted:Are we reading the same article? He pretty clearly states that the US' position was that the issue of sovereignty was to be worked out between the claimants, not that the US itself has sovereignty over the islands, which makes no sense at all. The article is like a page long I'm just taking his point to one of its logical conclusions. China or Taiwan were never in control of the islands after WWII, America was.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
You should probably actually read the piece, because he specifically addresses all the points you seem to be having difficulty with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2013 04:29
|
|