China cancels US military contact

[kvLin]

kvlin what you said about weapon sales is correct, but as you said US and China are largest trading partners. So does only US carries the risk and china does not carry any risk at all?

both of course, and that's why I said "China risk big loss doing so"

IMO, China has been paying US for not selling arms to Taiwan. I mean commercial concession here, and China must seek a new balance.

 

[nitesh]

both of course, and that's why I said "China risk big loss doing so"

IMO, China has been paying US for not selling arms to Taiwan. I mean commercial concession here, and China must seek a new balance.

US has also the biggest FDI in China. So it will be an interesting scenario.

 

[kvLin]

Be it weapon sales or not, the crisis of war has dropped to puny possibility
and a sign of peaceful reunification, promoted by econimic ties that are getting unprecedentedly close, has come into perspective since KMT got power in Taiwan.

Mayingjiu, president in Taiwan said yesterday: the territory of the public of China comprises the People's Republic of China. according to the traditional doctrine of RC, the territory consists of the mainland China, Mongolia, and claims more than PRC does,e.g. a Pamir area in Afghanistan and land pieces in Russia,Burma,India and even Pakistan. see below.



the RC claim is at best symbolic coz PRC has resolved most of the land dispute around, and for PRC the only worry is on the island of Taiwan, though independence infusers already lost power in there.

China doesn't really worry about those weapons to Taiwan, but politically China can not wave aside the US arm sales out of the unshakeable doctrine of sovereignty. although the defence in Taiwan is basically armed by US, it'll be a joke or bankruptcy if Taiwan seeks arm race with the mainland. the real balance across strait is weighted by US and China, and the US arm sales to Taiwan turn out to be a political ploy against China.

Now watch those key points as below:

1.In Taiwan the $6.4bln military budget used to be $20bln when projected in 2001, which was cut down under pressure from the "blue" party due to the recent recession.

2.Taiwanese has been complaining that the US arm sales to Taiwan are the most high-priced deals in the world, while other arms dealer countries feel more repressed by China from selling weapons to Taiwan.

3.On Sep.28th, Chinese PM said in NewYork that China would like to help retrieve the US economy.

4. Oct.3rd, the US capitol hill past a rescuing bill of 850bln, but where is the money?

5. China's foreign exchange reserves has reached 1.8trillion and is still running a growth of 40bln/month,according to a report in April this year.
1 trillion of the total FER has been invested on US enterprises, leaving 800+ bln available.

6. the same day for the rescue bill, the Bush administratoin declared the 6.4bln arm sales to Taiwan.

7. Oct. 5th, China negated the presumed 200bln purchasing plan of US national debt as reported by Hongkong media, and,as usual, protested against the US arm sales to Taiwan.

8. Oct.8th, Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of the US District Court directed to set free the ETIM terrorist from Guantanamo jail. adding to the show,the White house opposes the order and says that the setting free would misguide those prisoners of their "Righteous".

 

[kvLin]

anyway, I'm pretty sure China will reach out a hleping hand to US coz it's also a help to China itself. the focus of the confrontation lies in how much money and how to use the money, after all further investment in US might also enlarge the capital risk for China.

A Chinese economist said 700bln is merely a snack to the wall street which is recently typifying the globe financial crisis, and China must use the money modestly by following the law of market economy, not exclusively rushing to US rescue.

Look at Europe the traditional allies of USA, where are they when US is in trouble?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

very informative posts kvlin..

 

[jefmq]

At this special time, that the USA decided to sell Taiwan weapons may take bad effect on the friendship between china and America.
It is not a wise decision for America.

I seriously doubt if there is so-called friendship between China and US.

we should sell our weapons to Iran and Venezuela,such as J10,DF serious.

 

[kvLin]

the sino-us relation is never based on friendship, rather say, cooperation and containing each other.

 

[Black Stone]

I seriously doubt if there is so-called friendship between China and US.

Yes, we don't use the term "friends", as a matter of fact the US and China are considered as "partners". We could also say the relation is a cooperation of interests.

we should sell our weapons to Iran and Venezuela,such as J10,DF serious.

Why would China do this? I am sure the Chinese already have this option open to them since day 1, yet they have not done this. Why?, it's because this would really upset the US and China knows she cannot afford to do this.

China, like India understands that getting on the wrong side of the US is never a good thing, I am not boasting, but that is a fact. China also knows that by selling to the Iranians, the costs outweighs the benefit (politcially and economically).

By selling J-10s to Iran the money China get from Iran is peanuts, China is not willing to upset the US big time just for a few jet deals with Iran.

Here, check this out. I have highlighted the key part.

The dilemma that China perceives itself in is that on the one hand United States may be an obstacle to China's rise to being a great power, while at the same time, it is also believed that the United States is also indispensable to China's rise to being a great power.

Chinese Strategic Thought

 

[kvLin]

The dilemma that China perceives itself in is that on the one hand United States may be an obstacle to China's rise to being a great power, while at the same time, it is also believed that the United States is also indispensable to China's rise to being a great power.

Chinese Strategic Thought

only agreed on what you quoted.

selling conventional weapons doesn't break the law of nations,while selling arms to Taiwan at least violate the Sino-US joint communique and the 817 declaration. that's why China sold C-802 to Iran.

 

[Black Stone]

only agreed on what you quoted.

selling conventional weapons doesn't break the law of nations,while selling arms to Taiwan at least violate the Sino-US joint communique and the 817 declaration. that's why China sold C-802 to Iran.

The quote is to support what I have said and stress the importance of the US is to China. No matter how you digest that quote, it clearly states that US is more beneficial to China than China is to the US.

True, that selling weapons to nations is not breaking the law of nations. But this is not about breaking laws. This is about China having an "option" to sell weapons to any country...the key question is are they willing to do this despite knowing the consequences afterwards.

The situation facing China now is..."Is it worth it to provoke the US for peanut jet deals with Iran?" and "In the greater picture and in the long run...is Iran going to benefit the motherland more than the US?".

I am sure that any strategic minded person would know the answer to that.

Inregards to the Sino-US Communique, no, your mistaken, the pretext that the US uses to arm Taiwan is the TRA. Under the TRA, the US is obliged to provide Taiwan with arms to defend herself.

The Sino-US Communique is to support China that the US recognize that there is only one China and doesn't support Taiwan Independence.

The TRA is to support Taiwan that the US would help them protect themselves in a possible attack from the mainland.

Now, let's look at this situation. This Communique and TRA is the US idea of the status quo, NO TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE and NO ATTACK ON TAIWAN.

These two deals are the US strategy to swing both ways. To prevent China from taking Taiwan and become a true superpower and stopping short at supporting Taiwan independence which would really provoke the mainland.

If you ask me, this is a great strategy from the US.

1. Does this benefit the US?........................................................Yes.
2. Does this stop China from being a true superpower?.....................Yes.
3. Is China annoyed with the US playing both China and Taiwan?........Yes.
4. Is Taiwan reliant on the US protection?......................................Yes.
5. Does Taiwan Sales benefit the US?............................................Yes.
6. Is this morally correct of the US to swing both ways?....................No.

 

[frhbg]

the sino-us relation is never based on friendship, rather say, cooperation and containing each other.

Agree!

 

[gpit]

...

1. Does this benefit the US?........................................................Yes.
2. Does this stop China from being a true superpower?.....................Yes.
3. Is China annoyed with the US playing both China and Taiwan?........Yes.
4. Is Taiwan reliant on the US protection?......................................Yes.
5. Does Taiwan Sales benefit the US?............................................Yes.
6. Is this morally correct of the US to swing both ways?....................No.

My version.

1. Does this benefit the US?..................Depends. Apparently yes and only for short term.
2. Does this stop China from being a true superpower?.....................No. It may/may not delay the pace.
3. Is China annoyed with the US playing both China and Taiwan?........Yes.
4. Is Taiwan reliant on the US protection?......................................Yes, but is not reliable.
5. Does Taiwan Sales benefit the US?............................................Yes . But only for the short term.
6. Is this morally correct of the US to swing both ways?....................No. This hurts US interest in the long term. Specifically, US influence the world through soft powers called justice (such as in the WWII) and use money to enhance that image. It is now telling the world the US justice is nothing but a hump of stinky crap.

In addition:
7. Can Taiwan rely on US protection? …….. No. US do only transactional business with any country in the world. Vietnam is an example. In a regional conflict scenario, as long as China managed to kill 5-10k US soldiers, Domino will collapse. In a global conflict scenario, no body can calculate it. But one can probably assume that China is 99% gone, and US is 80% finished. Do smart Americans like this business?
8. Can China be contained by the arms sale? ……. No. On the contrary, more indigenous weapons and Russian technologies will be developed/used. Otherwise, that money could be pumped into US instead of Russia, as in 1970s story.
9. Will US be on receiving end of annoyances as a consequence of the sale? ….. Yes. China can proliferate conventional weapons around US, such as Venezuela, Cuba. NK nuclear program has been resurrected; Iran demands peaceful use of nuclear technology; Should China use 1 trillion to save US financial or just deliver a lip service? How about central Asia, such as raising rental fee again for military bases? Oil deal with Venezuela?
10. If US are forced to choose between Taiwan and Mainland, which one is more important? ….. Mainland.

In general, US is in upper hand now and China has to bear with it for a quite while. US need to invest its diminishing capital wisely to sustain the superpower status as long as it can.

 

[Black Stone]

My version.

1. Does this benefit the US?..................Depends. Apparently yes and only for short term.
2. Does this stop China from being a true superpower?.....................No. It may/may not delay the pace.
3. Is China annoyed with the US playing both China and Taiwan?........Yes.
4. Is Taiwan reliant on the US protection?......................................Yes, but is not reliable.
5. Does Taiwan Sales benefit the US?............................................Yes . But only for the short term.
6. Is this morally correct of the US to swing both ways?....................No. This hurts US interest in the long term. Specifically, US influence the world through soft powers called justice (such as in the WWII) and use money to enhance that image. It is now telling the world the US justice is nothing but a hump of stinky crap.

1. So it's a yes.
2. Disagree, you can't be a true superpower unless you have full control of your territories. To put it bluntly, the International Community would laugh at your true superpower claim when you don't control Taiwan.
3. So it's a yes.
4. So it's a yes.
5. So it's a yes.
6. So it's a no. It's morally incorrect, but the world is cruel, especially in politics.

In addition:
7. Can Taiwan rely on US protection? …….. No. US do only transactional business with any country in the world. Vietnam is an example. In a regional conflict scenario, as long as China managed to kill 5-10k US soldiers, Domino will collapse. In a global conflict scenario, no body can calculate it. But one can probably assume that China is 99% gone, and US is 80% finished. Do smart Americans like this business?
8. Can China be contained by the arms sale? ……. No. On the contrary, more indigenous weapons and Russian technologies will be developed/used. Otherwise, that money could be pumped into US instead of Russia, as in 1970s story.
9. Will US be on receiving end of annoyances as a consequence of the sale? ….. Yes. China can proliferate conventional weapons around US, such as Venezuela, Cuba. NK nuclear program has been resurrected; Iran demands peaceful use of nuclear technology; Should China use 1 trillion to save US financial or just deliver a lip service? How about central Asia, such as raising rental fee again for military bases? Oil deal with Venezuela?
10. If US are forced to choose between Taiwan and Mainland, which one is more important? ….. Mainland.

7. Disagree, under the TRA, the US will defend Taiwan should the mainland attacks, but if Taiwan attacks(suicidally) the mainland or cross their red line (formal independence) then the US would not help Taiwan.

China doesn't want military confrontation with the US over Taiwan because that will start WWIII. That's why the Chinese play a masterful tactic and I must say, I am impressed with this tactic, you might heard of it. It is called AREA DENIAL. What does this mean? it means that should the Chinese launch any sort of attack/invasion on Taiwan it would block the US so they can only watch from the sidelines and witness a rapid victory for the mainland.

The Key thing about this Chinese AREA DENIAL tactic is inorder for the US to help/defend Taiwan, the US would have to sink some PLAN ships and I can tell you, the US would not make the first kill because as we all know, the first country to make the first kill is always in the wrong.

8. Agreed, ofcourse it cannot contain China, that's like saying China selling J-10s to Iran and say USAF is contained.

9. Agreed, ofcourse there will be some sort of retaliation from China, but China's retaliation is of little concern to the US since America knows she still holds the upperhands both politically and economically against China.

10. Strongly agree, Taiwan is just a card for the US to leverage the mainland. As the Chinese leaders say the "Taiwan Question" is the most important factor in the Sino-US relations.

The mainland definitely benefits the US more than Taiwan.

In my opinion, we should not get involved in the China-Taiwan issue and certainly not send American lives to their deaths to save Taiwan. It is not our war. But then again, what I want and what is happening is a completely different thing.

I remember a retired Chinese general said that "if the US defends Taiwan, then the Amercians must be prepared to lose some cities" OK, this is quite controversial, but he speaks the truth, I don't think America is willing to risk the continental US being hit for an island like Taiwan.

In general, US is in upper hand now and China has to bear with it for a quite while. US need to invest its diminishing capital wisely to sustain the superpower status as long as it can.

Yes, the US is still the world leader, an arrogant one I might say, but China is a rising superpower, no one is denying this. Therefore, I support good relations with the Chinese for both political and economical reasons.

 

[gpit]

Remember that many things are not just black or white, i.e. not just simply yes or no. Today's somehow yes-ish will be tomorrow's somehow no-ish, and vice versa. A wise speculator/strategist will fully utilize the gray area to his own benefit.

Many wise men on both sides know that a Sino-US conflict can be "incalculable", "unpredictable". We all know how profoundly those simple adjectives mean.

Well said that on US side "it is not our war." But on Chinese side, it IS their war. We, too, all know how profoundly those simple statements mean in a ground operation or a war scenario.

Chinese multi-dimensional area denial systems are nothing but simply to raise risk threshold for US to get involved. If US will, it probably has some means to penetrate them at a high cost. The systems are well known in US, as has been articulated by Admiral Keating.

To launch a war is easy: you can always find an excuse to wage a war. But to finish a war is bloody, cruel and difficult.

Who are the eventual beneficiaries of the war? Obviously it is not US, nor China. Thus, neither would like to ignite a true war intentionally, but how about inadvertently while the two are playing the game in an attempt to maximize their respective benefit?

As far as moral is concerned, you can't make a whore not to be a prostitute. (Please excuse my mid-west expression.)

 

[Black Stone]

Remember that many things are not just black or white, i.e. not just simply yes or no. Today's somehow yes-ish will be tomorrow's somehow no-ish, and vice versa. A wise speculator/strategist will fully utilize the gray area to his own benefit.

The world keeps changing, so does the thinking and tactics of many countries. But the points we have discussed can be a simple yes or no at this moment in time. The reason why it leads to the grey area is when those points are "elaborated" further and this "elaboration" leads to a debate and as a result leads to a different stance on the debated result.

If we take point 3 as an example...

3. Is China annoyed with the US playing both China and Taiwan?

That requires a simple yes or no answer, It is either they are annoyed or not annoyed at all. There is no such nonsense as..."We are little annoyed" or "We are mildly annoyed" or "We are quite annoyed, just don't do it again or we would slap your hands".

Many wise men on both sides know that a Sino-US conflict can be "incalculable", "unpredictable". We all know how profoundly those simple adjectives mean.

A full scale Sino-US military conflict would be disastrous for both countries and the world. It would be a massacre on both sides. Neither the US or the Chinese would want a war against each other.

Well said that on US side "it is not our war." But on Chinese side, it IS their war. We, too, all know how profoundly those simple statements mean in a ground operation or a war scenario.

The reason why I said "it is not our war" is because that is exactly what the situation is. The Chinese civil rivalry should be left to them to sort it out themselves, we should not get involved in this issue. But the US has a track record of interfering in others affairs, this is unfortunate.

Chinese multi-dimensional area denial systems are nothing but simply to raise risk threshold for US to get involved. If US will, it probably has some means to penetrate them at a high cost. The systems are well known in US, as has been articulated by Admiral Keating.

Every strategy, there is a counter strategy for it. The key thing is, is the US willing to execute this counter strategy when the costs are extremely high and seeing little to none benefits from it. If the Chinese strategy deters the US, then it is a victory for the mainland.

To launch a war is easy: you can always find an excuse to wage a war. But to finish a war is bloody, cruel and difficult.

That is the case with the ME. We impose the war in the ME and there is no exit strategy. But when you look at China, China is not a cake walk for any military. Sure the US could start a war with China under whatever pretext she wants, but the US knows if she declares this...the US casualty and destruction would be so high that it is incalculable.

Who are the eventual beneficiaries of the war? Obviously it is not US, nor China. Thus, neither would like to ignite a true war intentionally, but how about inadvertently while the two are playing the game in an attempt to maximize their respective benefit?

In a Sino-US war, there is no winner for either of them, as a matter of fact both would be losers. China might be destroyed and the US might become a 3rd world country. Beneficiaries? that's easy, I can tell you who are the winners.

They are Russia, India, possibly the EU and perhaps all anti-US and anti-China countries.

Russia = This would be a dream for them, 2 superpowers eliminated each other. Russians would be downing Vodka's and doing the Russian dance.

India = Their big rival, destroyed. Just like the Iranians are happy that the US took out Iraq.

EU = Europe would take leadership in the so-called free world of democracy, in other words, carrying out the spread of democracy.

As far as moral is concerned, you can't make a whore not to be a prostitute. (Please excuse my mid-west expression.)

Morals exists in "Care Bears" land and "My Little Pony" world. It does not exist in politics, only interests.