24 replies on “China shoots down orbiting satellite.”

  1. Shit.

    This seems like a good time to take a vote: All those who still believe China is not a one-party totalitarian state incapable of living at peace with the world, and is instead a benign and enormous money-making opportunity for American investors, please raise your hands.

  2. “The Soviets played this game with us. It didn’t work out too well for ‘em.”

    The Soviets also didn’t have $1 trillion of our debt either…

  3. Look, I’m not a China-hater – I think they’ve got a remarkable culture and history and, politcally, I think they’re moving in the right direction. Even if it is taking a while.

    But the fact remains that they need us a lot more than we need them. Would a trade war be good for either country? No, but worse for them. A real war? We could put a stranglehold on their oil supply with a fraction of our Navy.

    So before they go shootin’ my GPS sats down, they might wanna give it some thought. That’s all I’m sayin.

  4. Oh, yeah, seriously — they’d be nuts. But it’s not for nothing that they’ve developed this technology.

    Long-term, China is the single biggest threat to the United States. If we’re lucky, they’ll simply restore the balance of power, becoming the only great power on the level of the U.S. If we’re unlucky, they’ll decide in a few decades that it’s time for a China-led hegemony.

  5. Yeah, I’d have to agree with you on all that, which is why I’m glad something like 60% of military R&D spending worldwide is done by Uncle Sam. Of the remaining 40%, over half is spent by our allies.

    I’d say that’s an indication the gap is only going to get wider. Of course, as Brother Joe Stalin said, “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

  6. The key term Judge Smails is missing in his reliance on American R&D is asymmetrical warfare. This is why the insurgents are so effective, and why the comparatively low-tech ability to destroy our satellites renders our missile defense program and theoretical attacks on China or Iran significantly diminished. Our reliance on technology to supplant diplomacy and human intelligence (HUMINT) is precisely what has led us to this point. I doubt it will lead us out.

  7. asymmetrical warfare . . . back in the 80s by dad always used to say the best way for China to beat us in a war was for them to surrender to us.

    Meaning there is so many of them and so few of us . . . a Trojan horse of sorts.

    Other than that, China has some real structural problems, huge disparities in wealth distribution, rogue and corrupt localities that pay little attention to the central government, an infrastructure that has grown WAY to fast and is built like a house of cards, pollution up to there eyebrows, disease, on and on and on.

    And how long can they keep this crazy balance of relative economic free markets with out civil liberty?

    Also, they have been finally floating their currency up a bit and it is really hurting a lot of their exporters who had such tiny profit margins

    Also India is forecasted to overtake China in the growth department by mid-century.

    It is actually quite scary that China has so much of our dept., what happens if they crash?

  8. Meaning there is so many of them and so few of us . . . a Trojan horse of sorts.

    Absolutely. Ignoring the nuclear option (because it doesn’t fit into any international relations theories), the country with the most people generally wins. China vs. anybody, China wins.

  9. Waldo,

    You are correct . . . though, I would say we should look at China as a potential threat . . . with a bit skepticism. For instance another one of their problems, population demographics: they have a huge imbalance in their population, lots of old, lots of men, not so much young, not so many women.

    Of course all of these problems I have listed are exactly the thing that can make them dangerous . . . not to mention their energy problems.

    PS. Waldo, I had a comment in the Ice Age thread that got lost to your spam filters…could you look at it and see if it meets your approval. Thanks

  10. The first generation of Chinese since the one-child policy was introduced is now in its 20s. There are something like 119 men for every 100 women. Havin’ a bunch of excess young men around who can’t get any is never good for stability.

  11. Thanks Waldo.

    Re: Judge

    I think that I saw an article somewhere sometime ago, that the sort of imbalance you just mentioned can be a precursor to societies becoming more militaristic.

    For the reason you just mentioned, but also because older men (the ones in charge) want to get rid of some of the competition.

    I would also assume that the competition n for internal resources would make the culture start to eye the resources of there neighbors as well.

    My bet is that there will be a war between Russia and China, before there is a war between the US and China.

    Russia: shrinking population, lots of resources (maybe why Russia is acting so belligerent recently, to hide weakness).

    China: hungry, big population.

    Also China will consider some of the things that the Judge mentioned via 01/18/2007 9:43 pm. Russia would look like a much softer target.

    But on the other hand China is buying stealth diesel powered stealth subs like its nobody’s business; and lots of fancy long-range missiles. All happen to be great at destroying big aircraft carriers, and the battle groups that protect them.

    hmmmm, whose gotta a lot of those?

  12. I was a Marine in China in 1945. Our unit was sent there from Bougainville, when the war ended, to disarm and repatriate Japanese soldiers. When I disembarked from the LST that took us to the port of Taku, I walked into a railroad station and everyone there cowered against a wall, in terror of the rifle slung onto my shoulder. My guess was that Japanese soldiers had been periodically coming into that station and other public gathering places for target practice.

    China had been ground under the heel of the Japanese, Europeans, and some people in the United States for almost a century. Our so called open door policy, in practice, stated that if any nation had their foot on the Chinese neck, that every other nation would have same privilege.

    When Chinese people emulated our Boston Tea party and threw British opium into Hong Kong Harbor, Britain reacted by fighting and winning a war against technologically inferior China and then annexing Hong Kong.

    China has a lot of scores to settle, and is rapidly developing the technological know how to do so. In the next few years China will have a fleet of nuclear submarines armed with sea to shore atomic missiles that, like ours can be fired from under water. With the capacity to shoot down our eye in the sky satellites and strike at west coast cities with atomic weapons, a possible future surprise attack on the United States by China would make Pearl Harbor pale by comparison. 2A36

  13. I have began to really get into asian foods over the last several years. But I bet they’re really going to love all the free range cattle the’ll be inheriting after they take us over. Once the residual radiation dies down that is.

  14. While China may someday attempt a surprise knock out strike at the United States, I’m counting on Chinese pragmatism and traditional wisdom to save the world from that stupid catastrophic possibility. However, if the Chinese military someday takes control of that country, just as the Japanese military once took control of Japan, then pragmatism may give way to jingoistic hubris, and we current senior citizens, who won’t be here to see that misfortune cookie crumble, will be the lucky ones.

  15. I am happy to hear that, at least there is someone out there to stop the bullying nature of U.S. I would be more happy if two or three other nations have this capability as well, nations like Iran or North Korea. Then we will have more peacefull world. Not like now as “do this or get ready for conquences” nature of U.S.

  16. True, we were the ones who brought the atomic bomb into the world. However, Hitler’s people were working on one at the same time, and I hope, Jim, that you don’t feel that it would have been better for the world if the Hitler gang had beaten us to that punch.

    It’s also true that we are the only nation to have used the that bomb on people. Granted, we should have first dropped it on an uninhabited island to give the Japanese a chance to surrender before we used it on them. However, there is a theory that the real reason we dropped it on Japan was to give Harry Truman more clout when speaking to Stalin; so it may have been Truman’s mother-in-law that was the real culprit as she reportedly nagged him so much that she robbed him of the self-confidence he needed to haggle with Stalin.

    All that having been said, I still think that it’s a good idea to keep that bomb out of the hands of people who starve their own people to feed their army, or don’t mind blowing themselves up because they think that the’ll be rewarded by being given a thousand virgins, or who speak of wiping another nation off the map, or who lock people up for speaking against the government. However, not to worry, everyone is probably eventually going to get it no matter what we or the rest of the civilized world does.

    I wonder if gals who blow themselves up expect to get a thousand studs.

  17. Getting back to Jim’s allegations that the US is a bully, I believe that all nations have their evil side. Sweden, for example, yes Sweden the home of the Nobel Peace Prize, advertised in a magazine aimed at soldier’s of fortune. The ad was obviously aimed at dictators of third world nations. It read, “Do you want more kills at a greater distance for less cost? If so, consider the our ground to ground long distance missile.”

    I’ll admit that American Capitalism and the profit motive has caused our country to look like a bully overseas, but as exploitive as our free enterprise Capitalism can sometimes be of third world nations, it’s not nearly as abusive of human rights than the current Chinese state controlled capitalism.
    Actually, our Capitalistic system could use more state control, because as it is, it’s doing an efficient job of destroying our middle class.

    I wonder how long it will before I’m kicked off this blog for changing the subject. It was the Chinese missile thing that started all this wasn’t it?

  18. And then from the sea there arose atomic missiles, and the cities of the West coast were laid waste. Then from the sewers of those cities emerged, from their long hiding, legions of Chinese soldiers, with each column being led by a soldier carrying a large flag with the words WALMART emblazoned in bright red against a dark blue background. (Well, it will be something like that) Also, It might be well to report, to Homeland Security, anyone seen lowering with string and basket, a serving of hot Chinese food into an open manhole. In addition, one should report sounds of people speaking Chinese, coming from their toilet.

  19. Were do I go to find that article, Tim? I wonder if China’s WALMART will start using the Marxist slogan. “From each according to his need, to each according to his ability.” and add “WALMART has the ability to supply all needs. Shop WALMART.” Leave it to the Chinese to forge a perfect bond between Communism and Capitalism. I wonder how many pairs of socks one would have to buy from WALMART to supply a Chinese soldier with a a rifle.

Comments are closed.