Posts by Keith Ng
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Kieth - what form would such a conflict take? Paul Buchanan noted in 2007 that Chinese ambitions clash directly with the United States' outer two defence perimeters in the Pacific. We are therefore likely to see much greater proxy clashes in this region...
(Sorry to stir up this thread again (threadjacking myself?), but have been away from a computer for two days.)
I just re-read the Buchanan article you linked to, and I think it's talking about something quite different from what you claim.
It suggests strategic competition in terms of having a greater capacity to wage war. The strongest terms he uses are:
Beyond physical defense of the Chinese mainland the strategic objective is deterrence first, followed by projection of power abroad so as to secure resource and commodity flows, and should conflict occur, denial of victory to adversaries rather than decisive military conquest.
That is very, very far from "gonna invade".
It's not as banal as it sounds (though it sounds pretty banal: "Plan is to not die, not lose, maybe kinda win."). His point is that the expansion of bases in the Pacific allows China to project several rings of naval defences, which will deter US naval aggression in the Pacific.
And this expansion is being conducted through aid and diplomacy.
None of this implies current, imminent, or intended shooting war, or invasion, or occupation.
-
Or aren't ridicolous, crude, stupid and racist, yes.
In Tom's defence. I don't think it's unreasonable or racist ask the question of whether China is a military threat. I disagree with his assertions, but I don't think he should be slammed for asking the question in the first place.
-
Re: War with China
First, second and third off: Why?
1) What would they gain?
You can't just take the past models of wars and assume that they'll be the same in the future – especially not World War II. It was a unique mix of ideology, geopolitics, technologies, economics that created a global war of annihilation. It was not a normal war.What kind of war would the next one be? Would it be a border skirmish? Naval interdictions? A proxy war? Cyber war? What would the goal be? Trade advantage? Military suppression? Regime change? Ethnic cleansing? Nuclear annihilation?
Why do you assume that a “conventional” war of occupation would be the default setting for a future war?
To answer that question, you'd have to explain why they'd want to occupy New Zealand, or any other country, given the tremendous costs it would entail. Neither war nor occupation is an end in itself. Just ask America.
While you're at it, consider how difficult it is for America to occupy Iraq. How difficult to you think it would be to occupy the world? How much manpower and resources would it require? How many bodybags would get shipped home? How long could they maintain that for?
2) What are they after, anyway?
The second part of that argument is what you believe the Chinese leadership to be. Are they evil? Are they stupid? Are they batshit-Hitler-insane? Would they care about killing tens of millions of foreigners? Would they care about losing tens of millions of Chinese? Would they care about the trillions and trillions of dollars it would cost?They are driven by maintaining the prosperity, stability, security and territorial integrity of China. You can trace a clear line from cracking down on dissidents and human rights abuses to these goals. To assume that “war” aligns with these goals, you'd either have to have a fantasy notion of what the cost and gains of war are, or you'd have to believe that the Chinese leadership is some kind of batshit insane.
Nor is their kind of nationalism particularly interested in taking over the world. China is China. Sure, they also believe that Tibet is China, but it's ideologically incoherent for them to be part of the same empire as, say, India or New Zealand.
3) Who do you think “they” are?
Have you met any Chinese people lately? The key ingredient in any war (well, conventional war anyway) is a population of disenfranchised and disgruntled young men. Maybe they are the norm in the rural areas – but not in the cities. When you have job, a future and a WoW character, you don't tend to be very keen to jump in a trench. Nobody – for the same reasons as the West – wants a war.I'm not saying there'll be peace on earth, just that you're trying to apply really simplistic models of World War II onto a very different China, in a very different world.
([Troll voice]: Much like Battlestar Galactica, in fact. Manned carrier-battles with projectile weapons in space? 1942 in space = Stupid.)
-
Ah, goddamnit. I leave for lunch and ww-friggin-3 breaks out.
I'll join in as soon as I scoff down my L&P and pork dumplings... er, I mean fush an' chups. Barbequed fush and chups. With sauce. Lots and lots of sauce. Mmm, I love that Watties tomato sauce.
-
... but I think 15,000,000 exporters will start to get irritated when a prospective customer Googles "Chinese mobile phone supplier" and gets no hits...
I don't think that, even in a worse-case scenario, Google will cut China out of the internet. This is about Chinese access to Google service, which isn't life-threatening, or even economy threatening.
It's power is mainly symbolic - but that's no small symbol.
-
Obviously this is not how to do business in China, and as the statement has already hurt the feelings of the Chinese people...
Absolutely, there are a lot of nationalist sensitivity around this. But I'd take it with a pinch of salt. First, it sounds a lot like the official government line, which is that Google's bluffing, and as a greedy company after the Chinese market, this is all just a hissy fit. Second, there are probably a lot of people who believe this (or just don't care about Google, or about online freedoms), but there are many who do. They would be equally offended at the notion that the Google should keep its mouth shut, even though they have evidence that China's trying to dig up information from them to use against activists.
Can anyone provide background about google.cn's business success? I'm under the impression that over the last few years Baidu has taken more and more marketshare, but I don't have any detailed knowledge about this.
Um, I've heard estimates of Google's market share from around low 10s to high 20s (percent of market share). It's a distant second to Baidu, but it's very, very far from trivial.
-
Google has not 'embargoed China'.
Ahem, my bad. As a journalist, embellishing headlines for effect is... actually, it kinda *is* journalism.
I know I should change it... but it's a tomahawk of a headline: simple, balanced and brutal. [Gah, changed it.] Also...
The statement makes it clear that Google plans to negotiate over the next few weeks with the Chinese government, rather than take any action immediately.
Yes, but they *have* taken action immediately. Confused the hell out of me - I don't think I was the only one who thought the censorship was still operational.
It's not.
I don't really understand what the game plan is, but, safe to say, I don't think you can take "we'll sit down and work something out" at face value.
-
A proper experiment is one that leaves the windows cracked, glassware embedded in the ceiling and the class being evacuated coughing onto the front lawn.
I take my chemistry cues from Breaking Bad: Safety gear, appropriate equipment, and an emergency eyewash station nearby. Safety first, manufacturing of methamphetamines second.
-
My friends who went (and who don't do 3D TV or porn, as far as I know) tell me that the 3d TVs cause massive headaches - at least wandering the show floors and looking at them did - they didn't say anything about the porn
Maybe it'd work better if they were on a bed that was vibrating at the same frequency. Or maybe it's the viewing angle. Nah, I'm sticking with the vibrating-bed-required theory.
-
Like so?