It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The 21st Century will be the Chinese Century?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 03:11 PM

Having read the Ancient Art of War and watching China's climb to an economic powerhouse reading the following didn't really surprise me much

It is true that China is running out of room for growth and that their leadership understands that full and continuing economic development will eventually spell their demise by peaceful transition to a non-communist government.

5 to 10 years is all they can wait to bring their plans to fruition, and what plans might those be? Well the destruction of America of course and the colonization of North America. Great navies and air forces are not required according to this speech given by Chi Haotian, China's Minister of Defence and vice-chairman of China’s Central Military Commission.

China has been biding her time and resources, of which she has plenty.

Please read the following speech and give your thoughts:

It sounds legit and in my opinion something that the CCP leadership would do regardless of the possibility of losing half of their population in such a confrontation. After all half of 1.3 billion is still a hell of a lot of people and the losses can be replaced in short order.

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 05:59 PM
They will have to deal with thousands of nuclear warheads landing on their homeland if they wish to attempt to invade this nation.

On top of that, they will have to deal with the most heavilly armed nation in the world. You think Iraq is bad?

Imagine dealing with 300 million pissed off Americans, complete with gangs in the cities, and an army of highly experienced hunters in the roral areas.

Add to that the most sophisticated military in the history of man.

Not to mentione the fact that it will take China several decades to come to the point where they are the equal of the US.

Honestly, the US is the closest to unconquerable any nation has ever been.

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:40 PM
If you had read the speech, bio weapons would be deployed first which the bird flu may be a test after SARS of course. Both originated in China after all.

The pressing need for China to do something about its massive population and the government’s realization that their hold on power is precarious gives credence to this possibility.

9/11 makes more sense if it were a shot by China (and other clandestine powers) caused to weaken the resolve, military and reputation of America.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:42 AM
An interesting article, if indeed it proves to be accurate. As I was reading it, I was struck by the relative ignorance of the speaker, who is reportedly Chinese National Defence Minister Chi Haotian. His ignorance in regards to issues of race is hardly surprising, considering that military leaders have traditionally been eager to point out the supposed superiority of their own people over their enemies. What was surprising was his appraisal of how an attack upon the United States would progress.

The report portrays a surprise biological attack on the United States as a relatively simple matter - China will attack and wipe out hundreds of millions of Americans and will then colonise the nation with its own people. However, this simplicity belies the reality that would ensue from such an undertaking.

Although a retaliatory nuclear strike is hinted at in the report, the speaker seems to believe that the United States would only retaliate if China's initial biological attacks were unsuccessful. However, such an attitude does not, in my opinion, consider the geographical vastness of the United States and the subsequent difficulty in spreading a biological pathogen across a large portion of the land rapidly. It is extremely likely that, after discovering evidence of such an attack and China's involvement in it, the United States would respond with a massive nuclear retaliatory strike against the Chinese mainland. There would be little possibility of China successfully deploying enough pathogen to render such a retaliation impossible. Even if this were somehow the case, it is unlikely in the extreme that the United States' nuclear submarines would not respond with devastating force against China itself, in an attack that would very likely destroy China's capacity to wage war or to colonise the United States.

Similarly, the speaker does not really touch on the reactions of other nations to such an attack, other than to say that they would probably surrender to China quickly and willingly. This is, in my opinion, a gross error in judgement. If China suddenly attacked the United States in an unprovoked and brutally callous fashion, it is unlikely that nations such as India, Russia, Great Britain, Japan and Australia would sit idly by and allow China to invade the United States. In the same way, it is also unlikely that these nations would acquiese to Chinese demands for surrender. Does the speaker believe that Russia, upon discovering that China has the capacity to release a biological agent that would (as the speaker claims) kill only those of non-Asian descent, would not hesitate to strike against China in self-defence? He speaks of learning lessons from Germany's defeat in World War 2, but he misses the key lesson in the Russian's willingness to sacrifice millions of people to protect their homeland. Similarly, I cannot believe that India, who has fought many wars with China and is a staunch ally of the United States and a nuclear power itself, would not hesitate to attack China in the event that it deployed a surprise biological attack upon the United States.

Even if these nations chose not to oppose China directly, which is unlikely, nations such as Great Britain, Canada and Australia would certainly declare war upon China immediately. The only way for China to win such a war quickly and decisively, without risking war against many enemies on many fronts, would be to make use of nuclear weapons. Doing so would render two of the nations proposed for colonisation, Australia and Canada, largely uninhabitable. Australia is indeed a vast nation, but much of it is largely uninhabitable desert or semi-arid zones. The actual volume of "living space" is fairly limited, as evidenced by Australia's relatively small population (approximately 20 million) and high percentage of urban settlement.

If China is unwilling to use nuclear weapons against these nations, then it faces the ugly proposition of fighting distant enemies with advanced and extremely capable militaries. I find it difficult to believe that China could fight a war against Great Britain, Canada and Australia simultaneously, whilst attempting to colonise the United States and deal with the remnants of its armed forces and civilian population.

Sadly, history has demonstrated that military leaders are often heedless of common sense and are all too willing to engage in suicidal actions in the name of pride or the mistaken notion of national superiority. The actions the speaker outlines for China would result in millions, if not billions, of deaths and the likely annihilation of China itself. Having said that, such realisations have not stopped military commanders in the past.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Thanatos
If you had read the speech, bio weapons would be deployed first which the bird flu may be a test after SARS of course. Both originated in China after all.

The pressing need for China to do something about its massive population and the government’s realization that their hold on power is precarious gives credence to this possibility.

9/11 makes more sense if it were a shot by China (and other clandestine powers) caused to weaken the resolve, military and reputation of America.

And if you used your head you would understand that even if China used a surprise bio attack they would still get a few thousand nukes on their home land.

Bottom line:

If China wants to colonize somewhere half way across the world, SOUTH America is a much better target.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 04:39 AM
I'm not defending the position given in this speech. Hell I don't even have any confirmation that is it legitimate.

As Jeremiah25 stated, the opinion of the speaker is that China could withstand such retaliation and is willing to ‘give it a shot’ or face losing their hold on power.

Those in power often have an unrealistic view of their power and capabilities as well as the consequences of their actions as history and the present can attest to.

And I 'use my head' all the time, enough to take pause and not attack those who don't share my opinion.

As for South America I agree that it would be a better choice but not for the US standing in the way, ergo they’ve got to attack them first.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 04:27 PM
I'm not even going to bother to comment, half of you will think I'm lying, etc etc.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 04:49 PM
OH come on, that's like saying "I've got a secret" and then saying "but I can't tell you".

This is ATS after all, if you said the sky is blue you'd get an argument, and personal attacks I'm sure.

Let 'er rip.

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:22 PM
I am a Chinese, so please excuse my grammar and spelling. I read through both the English and Chinese version of the webpage provided and found that the article is quite interesting.

After reading it, my first impression is that the article is not an official speech done by any officials in China. China’s officials don’t speak freely and openly like that. Not to mention that the topic is about invading other countries for more space, and even “how to” invade them.

Frankly, we Chinese people don’t like war, we like to talk about it, read about it and write about it, but we don’t like to do about it. History shows that we haven’t invaded any other countries since the era of Genghis Khan. We tend to do civil wars if we found ourselves short in resources.

new topics

top topics


log in