-
Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!
USA vs. CHINA
- Thread starter OTIS
- Start date
Subsonic Chronic
TRIBE Member
I don't think the pres was too pleased about the 27 bugging devices in his personal aircraft. That and the spy plane incident from not long ago makes the U.S. look pretty bad.
Pete
Pete
did anyone hear about how the chinese presidential jet had american spy equipment on it? that was pretty fucked up. the chinese aren't going to be too happy. at this rate, the US is gonna get bitch slapped all over the place. anyone else starting to predict a war: everyone vs. USA?
someone should tell bush to only pick on one country at a time.
CC
someone should tell bush to only pick on one country at a time.
CC
Jeremy Jive
TRIBE Member
No offence or anything but I think its time for some change. America has been walking around bullying the world over its politics with no concern for how others are going to feel about it. They keep sticking their noses in everyones business and letting the UN pick up the pieces when they are done.
I think its about high time that the world if not one large power like China stands up against world bullies who ever they are and pimp-slaps them in the way they deserve it.
jeremy -I like Americans, just not American politics- jive
I think its about high time that the world if not one large power like China stands up against world bullies who ever they are and pimp-slaps them in the way they deserve it.
jeremy -I like Americans, just not American politics- jive
A few articles:
10:04 2001-05-04
CHINA ACCUSES USA OF SEEKING MILITARY SUPREMACY IN THE WORLD
China has accused Washington of seeking absolute military supremacy in the world after it has taken a decision on the deployment of the national missile defence system, says an editorial of the Chinese newspaper Zhongguo ribao, which comments on the recent statement by the US President on the national missile defence system and refusal to observe the 1972 ABM Treaty.
The article stresses that refusal to observe this Treaty will cause a new round of the arms race and lead to the encouragement of the spread of mass destruction weapons.
In the newspaper's opinion, the USA, as it seems, is pushing the world back to the cold war period and choosing the way of military confrontation instead of solving disputes by way of negotiations.
As the article goes on to say, having remained the sole superpower in the world, the USA is clearly seeking to win absolute military supremacy and greater global hegemony. In its desire to secure its own interests, the USA ignores without any hesitation international laws and principles, the newspaper stresses.
The actions by the Bush administration in the last 100 days clearly testify to the fact that the US egoistic position based on the principle "America is above all" is winning an ever larger support in US foreign policy, the newspaper notes.
The other day an official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the destruction of the 1972 ABM Treaty would undermine the global strategic balance of forces and stability, disrupt the process of international control over armaments, and also international efforts in the field of non-proliferation.
=============================================
That spyplane article...
USA and China wrangle over US 'spyplane'
By Martin Streetly,
Editor of Jane's Electronic Mission Aircraft
US and Chinese officials were today wrangling over the return of a US Navy EP-3 surveillance aircraft that landed at Lingshui military airfield on Hainan island on the morning of Sunday 1 April 2001. The US aircraft diverted to Lingshui following a mid-air collision between itself and one of two Chinese J-8 interceptors that had been launched to shadow it while it conducted a reconnaissance mission over the South China Sea.
The Chinese have reported that the EP-3 veered into one of the fighters, hitting it with its nose and port wing. The US aircraft broadcast a 'Mayday' distress call prior to making its emergency landing at Lingshui, while, as of 11.00 GMT on 2 April, no remains of the J-8 fighter had been found. The EP-3's 24-man crew was reported to have survived the emergency landing.
The US government has been quick to stress the view that the People's Republic of China has no reason to hold the aircraft's crew (claiming that the aircraft was operating in international air space at the time of the collision) and that the EP-3 itself is US 'sovereign territory'. This latter point is of considerable significance, since the longer the aircraft is in China's hands, the longer its intelligence services will have to examine the extremely sensitive surveillance technology carried by such platforms.
-OTIS
10:04 2001-05-04
CHINA ACCUSES USA OF SEEKING MILITARY SUPREMACY IN THE WORLD
China has accused Washington of seeking absolute military supremacy in the world after it has taken a decision on the deployment of the national missile defence system, says an editorial of the Chinese newspaper Zhongguo ribao, which comments on the recent statement by the US President on the national missile defence system and refusal to observe the 1972 ABM Treaty.
The article stresses that refusal to observe this Treaty will cause a new round of the arms race and lead to the encouragement of the spread of mass destruction weapons.
In the newspaper's opinion, the USA, as it seems, is pushing the world back to the cold war period and choosing the way of military confrontation instead of solving disputes by way of negotiations.
As the article goes on to say, having remained the sole superpower in the world, the USA is clearly seeking to win absolute military supremacy and greater global hegemony. In its desire to secure its own interests, the USA ignores without any hesitation international laws and principles, the newspaper stresses.
The actions by the Bush administration in the last 100 days clearly testify to the fact that the US egoistic position based on the principle "America is above all" is winning an ever larger support in US foreign policy, the newspaper notes.
The other day an official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the destruction of the 1972 ABM Treaty would undermine the global strategic balance of forces and stability, disrupt the process of international control over armaments, and also international efforts in the field of non-proliferation.
=============================================
That spyplane article...
USA and China wrangle over US 'spyplane'
By Martin Streetly,
Editor of Jane's Electronic Mission Aircraft
US and Chinese officials were today wrangling over the return of a US Navy EP-3 surveillance aircraft that landed at Lingshui military airfield on Hainan island on the morning of Sunday 1 April 2001. The US aircraft diverted to Lingshui following a mid-air collision between itself and one of two Chinese J-8 interceptors that had been launched to shadow it while it conducted a reconnaissance mission over the South China Sea.
The Chinese have reported that the EP-3 veered into one of the fighters, hitting it with its nose and port wing. The US aircraft broadcast a 'Mayday' distress call prior to making its emergency landing at Lingshui, while, as of 11.00 GMT on 2 April, no remains of the J-8 fighter had been found. The EP-3's 24-man crew was reported to have survived the emergency landing.
The US government has been quick to stress the view that the People's Republic of China has no reason to hold the aircraft's crew (claiming that the aircraft was operating in international air space at the time of the collision) and that the EP-3 itself is US 'sovereign territory'. This latter point is of considerable significance, since the longer the aircraft is in China's hands, the longer its intelligence services will have to examine the extremely sensitive surveillance technology carried by such platforms.
-OTIS
i agree with jeremy. i think that the UN should run everything. so i think that it's time that the US started getting scared of handling wars on it's own. if the UN has more power, then there would probably be a whole lot less war. having the US play bully is doing no one any good.
CC
CC
Ditto Much
TRIBE Member
Depends on the war...
In an all out war both sides would mutually destroy one another at about the same time. Thus most likely both sides would mutually end humanity (same as USA / Russia).
In a coventional battle the defending side would win in both cases. Both sides are well fortified and have the ability to accept a fair bit of punishment before they go down. As well both have airforces that would be capable of intercepting most attacks by the other.
The only battle that would make sence would be a naval battle. China is surprisingly short of actual oil. In fact with only a moderate increase in usage they could drain they're supply in less than 5 years. thus the most likely attack would be China taking the Spratly Islands. Thus causing a war in the South China Sea.
The US would be forced into a naval battle and would have to use the Pacific Ocean as its major supply lines. this would be impractical and the US would stand little chance of victory.
Thus the only invasion that makes sense for China is a navel battle that the US would never be able to engage them in.
For the US... Sensibly the only territories that are worth taking are Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America. Anything to provocative in the middle east would most likely cause a back lash from europe (they're gas and oil supply) and Russia. China would most likely not invovle itself in this war as they generally don't involve themselves in the middle east. All other territories listed are simple military targets that would fall in matter of days.
This would force China (or any military for that matter) to wage a war from accross either the Atlatic or Pacific. In modern teerms both of these are practically impossible. Thus the only military that would have any chance of being able to involve itself would be Russia. And they would forced to cross the Bering Straight into Alaska (read next to impossible) to accomplish this.
Oh yeah I'd rather bow to the US than to China. If your against the US because of there environmental, human rights, resource exploitation, or just about anything else China is far worse.
Again the only battle China would probably even consider doing is The Spratly Islands. China and Vietname have fought over them a couple of times. Malaysia and the Philippines have also laid claim, and Taiwan (are they even a real country) also lays claim to them.
In an all out war both sides would mutually destroy one another at about the same time. Thus most likely both sides would mutually end humanity (same as USA / Russia).
In a coventional battle the defending side would win in both cases. Both sides are well fortified and have the ability to accept a fair bit of punishment before they go down. As well both have airforces that would be capable of intercepting most attacks by the other.
The only battle that would make sence would be a naval battle. China is surprisingly short of actual oil. In fact with only a moderate increase in usage they could drain they're supply in less than 5 years. thus the most likely attack would be China taking the Spratly Islands. Thus causing a war in the South China Sea.
The US would be forced into a naval battle and would have to use the Pacific Ocean as its major supply lines. this would be impractical and the US would stand little chance of victory.
Thus the only invasion that makes sense for China is a navel battle that the US would never be able to engage them in.
For the US... Sensibly the only territories that are worth taking are Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America. Anything to provocative in the middle east would most likely cause a back lash from europe (they're gas and oil supply) and Russia. China would most likely not invovle itself in this war as they generally don't involve themselves in the middle east. All other territories listed are simple military targets that would fall in matter of days.
This would force China (or any military for that matter) to wage a war from accross either the Atlatic or Pacific. In modern teerms both of these are practically impossible. Thus the only military that would have any chance of being able to involve itself would be Russia. And they would forced to cross the Bering Straight into Alaska (read next to impossible) to accomplish this.
Oh yeah I'd rather bow to the US than to China. If your against the US because of there environmental, human rights, resource exploitation, or just about anything else China is far worse.
Again the only battle China would probably even consider doing is The Spratly Islands. China and Vietname have fought over them a couple of times. Malaysia and the Philippines have also laid claim, and Taiwan (are they even a real country) also lays claim to them.
Fir3start3r
TRIBE Member
None offence taken.
The thought of this makes my skin crawl. You actually want communism? We all know how well that works...
You guys can bash the US all you want but I'd find it very disheartening to bitch about a country that sticks up for others and is always the first country there to help in humanitarian situations. How many other countries do you see coming over the ocean to help them when they have earthquakes or drought?
And who do you think is in Afganistan right NOW trying to help rebuild a country that hasn't seen peace in YEARS.
I would be a hypocrite to even consider slapping a country in the face while they hold the peace and freedom we so dearly take for granted.
You call them bullies.
I call them a country that has choosen to lead a world which others can learn from (and do). Did they want the job of being the world's police force? Probably not. But I'd choose them over any other country.(Sort of smacks of that Sinclair speak doesn't it?
Our right-here-and-now society simply does NOT fit into world politics.
I had to laugh when I saw an interview with a young guy (about mid 20's) just three days after the horrific Sept.11 attack. He had the audacity to ask why they having starting attacking yet. 3 DAYS?!!? Good grief...attack WHOM??
Have we forgotten so much since the last World War? Find a veteran and ask them this question...
Klubmasta Will
TRIBE Member
from the hullaboard:
Klubmasta Will
TRIBE Member
i actually love the u.s.a. (i don't agree with all their policies but i still love 'em).
i just posted the redneck map cuz it was hilarious.
i just posted the redneck map cuz it was hilarious.
el presidente Highsteppa
TRIBE Member
At the same time, there's been plenty of espionage and stolen plans/documents that chinese spies have taken from the U.S. I can't recall the name, but one Defence contracter (who although was never proven in a U.S. court of being a spy and selling plans to the Chinese, certainly had some extremely suspicious circumstances surrounding him) was caught photocopying sensitive documents that clearly were not supposed to be, as well as had an unusual amount of cash dumped into his account soon afterwards.
U.S. and China, there's no doubt that there are tensions between them, and that they're going to only get worse, IMHO. China has decried much of the U.S. and their policies, politics, culture and lifestyles, and with Bush's son being in power, is only giving them fuel for the fire. They have as many misconceptions about the U.S. as the U.S. has about China. The current U.S. xenophobia isn't really helping things either.
From the Ministry of an arms race? I'm not so sure of. It's possible, but I think China has learned from Russia's mistakes and will not get into a spending war with the U.S. China's economic situation isn't the best, and is light years away from competeing seriously with the Americans.
Prime Minister Highsteppa
I beg to differ, I recently saw a composition and comparison of every aspect of military strength. US & China were very similar in numbers except for China had much more experienced infantry as well as more raw numbers of them since serving time in the military there is required by law.
-OTIS
Fir3start3r
TRIBE Member
I guess the question is...is this even an issue?
Oh sure there'll be covert spy coverups, etc., etc. but just look at how many American (and Canadian) companies that have won huge contracts in China.
China wants to change. They have to change or risk further slipping behind the rest of the world. They know they can't do it themselves and their sheer numbers just doesn't cut it in today's economy.
Oh sure there'll be covert spy coverups, etc., etc. but just look at how many American (and Canadian) companies that have won huge contracts in China.
China wants to change. They have to change or risk further slipping behind the rest of the world. They know they can't do it themselves and their sheer numbers just doesn't cut it in today's economy.
KickIT
TRIBE Member
I read an article how the US desire to scrap the 1974 ABM treaty and start a missile defense program is so they can militarize space. All basis for any missile defense lies in launching counter offensives from low orbit. This would also mean a military supremacy, which is probably why countries like Russia and China are so adamently against it.
Oh and don't forget that a military arms race is also great for an economy that has so much aerospace and military engineering capital.
*c*
Oh and don't forget that a military arms race is also great for an economy that has so much aerospace and military engineering capital.
*c*
el presidente Highsteppa
TRIBE Member
Mandatory military service and strength in sheer numbers is one thing. But suitable candidates in an actual combat situation is something completely different. Although China does have a rather staggering number of people involved in the military, one must ask how many would actually be suitable in combat and how many are simply serving in an infrastructure role. The Chinese economy is not in any position currently compete with the U.S. and it has been widely speculated that it is because of their embracing of communist economics and their slow nature of embracing a more capitalist friendly ideology, Hong Kong was a very important acquisition in 1999, but many of Hong Kong's greatest economic minds left, which didn't help things for China as much as they had hoped. The fact that the global economy is in a recession, isn't helping things a whole lot either.
I see what you're saying Otis, I kinda agree with you.
From the Ministry of just some questions I needed to ask.
Prime Minister Highsteppa
