China colonel raises nuclear spectre

Originally posted by JewAgainstZionism

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Ask those folks in Tibet how Chinese hospitality is working out there.

Why don't you ask how Texas likes the US government hospitality

I don't really have to... I work for a man in Texas, moderating at another website. I've driven across Texas and in Texas for 15 years as a trucker and while younger...lived in Abilene Texas for a summer. I've never known Texas to have much in the way of complaints for it's position in the Union ....At least until this Administration came down the road to handle the nation the way it is now.

I'm shocked you'd even make the comparison. Texas joined the Union of their own free will and by free choice. Tibet was brutally invaded, raped of it's resources and generally plundered to this day. This was a topic I was passionate and activist about in my youth so it's something of a pet peeve when people are ignorant of it ...but speak as if they weren't.


(This is a breif snapshot of recent events...there is MUCH more if you'd like. Source )

It's not the fact that some folks hate Israel or hate the United States that annoys me so much at times. It's how SELECTIVE the outrage tends to be. Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are poor poor victims .... Yet China is great and Tibet? Oh...well that just doesn't count or something.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Tibet is a very interesting case and not quite as clear cut as you may imagine. Relations first surfaced around 640 AD when Songstan Gampo (Tibetan King) married the daughter of Emperor Taizong (Tang Dynasty). During his reign, Songtsan Gampo added parts of the Yarlung River Valley to the Kingdom of Tibet; his descendants would also conquer the vast region that is now the Chinese provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, and Xinjiang between 663 and 692. Control of these border regions would change hands back and forth for centuries to come. By 692, China had retaken most of these Western lands.

Tibet then befriended Genghis Khan, prior to his conquests of China. Although they paid tribute, they received an autonomy that China did not. Over time, the Mongols came to regard them as the 13th territory of Yuan China (Mongol controlled). And this is really where Chinese claims come from.

Personally, i do not subscribe to those claims but there you go.........

ETA:

This is a very dumbed down version and doesn't reflect the whole story. Thought it better to point that out.

reply to post by Flavian

I appreciate the addition and you're very right on that. Isn't there always more to these disputes and conflicts between nations than would first appear? Tibet and China certainly do have an odd little history though. Thanks for adding that!

reply to post by Flavian


so that settles it: if you've both been conquered by some tyrant in the past, the larger country can annex the smaller one hundreds of years later and colonize you out of existence. There must be some German word for this type of 'logic' (using the term very loosely here), Lebensraum, was that it?

guess what, sooner or later they'll start looking elsewhere, and then ...?

PS: Tibet was a theocracy, sure, but the invasion happened for very different reasons, so the point is moot.

Originally posted by Hijinx
. If aggressions escalate and a significant portion of the US fleet moves into range, the Chinese could benefit launching a first strike. I mentioned the DF-21 in my last post, it has significant range, the destructive capability to sink a super carrier in a single hit, it's in the high hypersonic speed delivery range, it's their killing strike really. The Chinese are probably well aware head to head many of it's naval vessels are no match for modern naval forces. The Chinese could very likely live through or even win some naval engagements, but if you draw the enemy vessel into range of the DF-12 a single missile launched from the mainland could decimate an entire vessel as large as a super carrier, and the vessel can do nothing to protect itself besides remain outside of operational range

OK, and then what? What defense does the Chinese fleet have against B-2's and then US attack submarines?

In modern combat with technologically sophisticated adversaries, most surface fleet will end up sunk.

The carriers will stay out of range, and their primary mission will be tanking for attack aircraft.

Suppose US submarines sunk all oil tankers entering Chinese ports. (not very difficult).

reply to post by daaskapital


Honestly, I think China has more things to worry about within its own borders.
I seriously doubt they are going to be out looking for a war. Although that would be one
way to decrease their population I suppose.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by JewAgainstZionism

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Ask those folks in Tibet how Chinese hospitality is working out there.

It's not the fact that some folks hate Israel or hate the United States that annoys me so much at times. It's how SELECTIVE the outrage tends to be. Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are poor poor victims .... Yet China is great and Tibet? Oh...well that just doesn't count or something.

I agree with you. It's total hypocrisy. Based on China's record on human rights there is no way the U.S. should be doing business with them. Sadly, it is all about the dollar. Where can we mack a buck? It isn't just Tibet being ignored. How about Rwanda, Darfur and other places in Africa?

As long as we're sticking with navy and airforces, it'll be okay, cause whatever happens, of the two things I know, one of them is "Never get involved in a land war with Asia."

the Chinese are talking shat and rattling sabres? my god, thats unheard of!

or something....

Originally posted by daaskapital
Things are definitely heating up now...especially now since a warning has been given to Australia.

''America is the global tiger and Japan is Asia's wolf and both are now madly biting China,'' Colonel Liu said.

''Of all the animals, Chinese people hate the wolf the most.

''Australia should never play the jackal for the tiger or dance with the wolf.''

Colonel Liu asked that his message be conveyed directly to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, as she prepares to deliver a major speech on national security.

His views do not represent Chinese government policy, but he said they were consistent with what mainstream Chinese political and military leaders think, if not what they say.

Colonel Liu is one in a group of outspoken hawkish PLA officers, who do not claim to speak on behalf of the leadership, but are given a conditional licence to speak stridently on some issues at some times.

So this officer is pretty serious considering he has asked that the message be relayed to the Prime Minister directly. And while his personal views do not represent that of the Chinese Government, he is allowed to speak out on specific things...so perhaps it was the Chinese Government who told him to send this message.

Either way, it sucks to be in Australia's position.


www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 22-1-2013 by daaskapital because: ex

You're right in that it sucks to be in Oz's position, but China is nuts if they think part of the Crown is going to side with China (or even remain neutral) - they also should know they would be set back 1,000 years in a war with the US, UK, Australia, NATO. Nukes not even necessary. It would be WW3, but China would be annihilated by the US military tech. Even If we had to take out their 200,000,000 man army, they are so ridiculously overmatched, especially by air and sea, it would essentially just be a prolonged Nicaraguan Conflict.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Told us what exactly? That this claim is still swirling around the bowl, like it has been for quite sometime, much longer than 2 years ago. Take a history lesson, relations between the US and China over territory have always been touch and go, this is nothing new.

If he US was really to go to war with China, i expect much of the fight would be fought from space. I doubt they need nukes anymore. I remember an interview with a former military bigwig (some sort of bureaucrat, secretary of state or something, who worked directly under Jimmy Carter) talking about the standing military that the US has is pretty much redundant and basically serves financial interests of selective individuals in power.

The Tech that the US possess is so far in front of whats public that there is literally no real need for a force even 10% of the size it is now and the military now serves basically as a market place for those big company's selling $500 toilet seats and $ 120 single meals.

I cant see how one million soldiers with guns and gunboats and jets, etc can do a whole lot against massive microwave weapons mounted on hundreds of satellites that can disintegrate a single person or an entire aircraft carrier in a single shot with perfect accuracy, or weapons that can cause earthquakes and snow storms over a battlefield, military base, weapons factory, or capital city.

From what i've read in the past, the Chinese are banking on race specific biological weapons, this seems like more of a terrorist weapon to me. And yes they have previously stated that they want to invade Australia, Canada, and the United States. With their single Carrier, i doubt they are even remotely ready to do that, and cant even contain Tibet, i'm not sure how they could occupy another nation with 10% of the population sick and possibly a mutated virus killing their own troops.

Not gonna happen.

reply to post by PlayerOne


They have more than one naval ship, you do know that, don't you?

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Iamschist

 

Austraila should not be concerned from bullying tactics from either side of the potential conflict. Australia should side with whoever their electorate want their government too. Australia also has no reason to be scared of either power as Geographically, Australia has to be one of the hardest countries in the world to attack. If anything does happen and Australia require any assistance from the UK, our boys would do it with honour for our Commonwealth partners, but I am sure they are capable of looking after themselves anyway.

You bring the Crumpets and we will bring the Maple Syrup ,lets have us a little party the only thing we are missing is some vegamite,no worries though mates we will find some as soon as we land ashore,we all support our Brothers of the Empire in OZ.

The Queens sphere of influence is still stronger than diamond,globally,a wrong committed against one is a blow against ALL.Anyone who is a student of history can number the colonys that exist today as extensions of that sphere of power.It is still a global autonomy,the Royal Family however remains the catalyst of any and all global action of any degree.

Nobody messes with the Commonwealth--no one.

Originally posted by marsendChina could invade Aussie rather easily, however there is no need, All they need to do is to stop sending us our food and the other poor quality rubbish that we consume mostly being from China and Aussie will start eating each other, at least the lot in the cities after Woollies and Coles shelves are empty, and we cant eat coal.

edit on 23-1-2013 by marsend because: Typo

I see nothing in my household that was manufactured in China that I really rely on. Sure, there's stuff here but I can do without it all.

We feed ourselves too. Has everyone lost the ability to actually produce their own food and become totally reliant on supermarkets?

Maybe this news is a reminder to get out there and learn how to!

What pizza me off most about this is that the Chinese Government during WW2 received aid from the allies. If it weren't for this they would have lost some fair chunks of territory to the Japanese in the least and become subservient slaves to the police state most likely. That being said... perhaps it's other matters which are the true source of their aggressive attitude. Maybe they just want all that gold that they put into safe keeping back in the late 1930's to be kindly returned and are getting a little pizza'd off about getting the run around?
It seems to me that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 79' was also the major contributor to the disintegration of the Soviet Block ten years latter. It bankrupted them in the end, left the military in a demoralized state and basically ineffective to enforce social obedience to the regime and the younger generation especially wanted a change. China may well want to keep that little tidbit in mind when thinking of war with any prospect of being possibly prolonged. A military spread out over the pacific would be costly and who's minding the kids back home? The winds of change may yet come and sweep the last great " communist " empire away.

reply to post by Long Lance


I think you missed the point i was making entirely, to be honest. Did i at any point claim it was justification for anything?

I was simply providing additional information to demonstrate the shared history, etc - what us ATS-ers are supposed to do...........

Originally posted by cprnicus
What pizza me off most about this is that the Chinese Government during WW2 received aid from the allies. If it weren't for this they would have lost some fair chunks of territory to the Japanese in the least and become subservient slaves to the police state most likely. That being said... perhaps it's other matters which are the true source of their aggressive attitude. Maybe they just want all that gold that they put into safe keeping back in the late 1930's to be kindly returned and are getting a little pizza'd off about getting the run around?
It seems to me that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 79' was also the major contributor to the disintegration of the Soviet Block ten years latter. It bankrupted them in the end, left the military in a demoralized state and basically ineffective to enforce social obedience to the regime and the younger generation especially wanted a change. China may well want to keep that little tidbit in mind when thinking of war with any prospect of being possibly prolonged. A military spread out over the pacific would be costly and who's minding the kids back home? The winds of change may yet come and sweep the last great " communist " empire away.

The official Chinese government of the WWII-era was what is now the Taiwanese government. The Chinese were in the middle of a crippling civil war between the Nationalist Government forces (who were later forced to flee to the island of Formosa) and the rag tag dirty Commies led by Mao ZeDong. That's why the Japanese were able to make such huge inroads into mainland China. It wasn't until a ceasefire was hammered out between the Nationalists and the commies that they could receive bulk Allied aid and provide facilities for Allied airbases. As you're no doubt aware, a few years after the end of the Second World War, the Nationalists were sent running.

The thing about China's military which has concerned Australia's policy-makers for the past couple of decades is not the increasing technological sophistication of the Chinese military, it's the military's place within the wider social and demographic issues. The Chinese "One-Child" policy has seen Chinese couples demonstrate a distinct preference for male children. A boy will grow to be a man, and is seen to have better earning potential than a Chinese woman. Traditionally, Chinese parents have in their old age, been looked after by their children - usually a whole brood of kids. With only one kid being decreed by law, they better make sure they stick with one who can support mum and dad. This has led to a situation where China's population in general (and her military in particular) has literally millions of men who will never find a woman or reproduce. With China's massive population, if overcrowding is not yet a problem it soon will be. One solution to overcrowding and resource depletion is population reduction. One surefire method of population reduction is modern warfare. In the Korean War the Chinese practiced human wave attacks against Allied/UN positions. Although many brave men were mowed down by the terrified defenders of these Allied/UN positions, it was worth the risk. China had one military resource in absolute surplus - manpower. Disgustingly high casualty rates were good for China, both militarily and economically.

The point I'm trying to make in a roundabout way is that military adventures for China are a good thing - they'll cull the herd at minimum and if they are able to grab a little leibensraum and some scarce resource types at the same time, then all the better. Expect military adventures to occur as soon as China's main customers suffer from serious economic woes ad can no longer support the Chinese economy through sales of manufactured goods. War, in this instance, will be an effective pressure-release valve.

I had considered it largely bluster before but now with this - www.presstv.ir... in India

The advisory said people should construct bomb shelters in their yards if they do not have basements large enough to house their families.

"Expect some initial disorientation as the blast wave may blow down and carry away many prominent and familiar features," it added.

The advisory also told residents to keep people contaminated by fallout out of their shelters.

There is definitely something afoot and I am getting a bit concerned.

reply to post by daaskapital


Tigers and Wolves are two of my favorite animals, the latter has been viciously persecuted by certain peoples and elites. I'll take the two animals China is complaining about than the 'way of the herd' they seem driven by...