Gates warns China not to underestimate US power

[huzihaidao12]

Neither is the US declaring war all over the world, unless Saddam and Al Qaeda/ Taliban= whole world.

Meanwhile, how many territorial disputes does China have? How many currently indepently administered tracts of land does China lay claim to?

The US never layed claim to the land of Afghanistan or Iraq. China lays claim to land/water administered by India, Taiwan as a whole, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, etc.

You forgot the history of the United States, you've got more than enough territory from neighbors. China only from the territorial issue left over by history, except that Taiwan is part of China and India, to determine all the other problem is the territorial sea, it is a new concept, many countries have this trouble. China is far less than the greed of the United States in the territory.

 

[EagleEyes]

you insult me with a technology owned by me using my language? hmm ironic isn't it?

may I add the servers for this website is based in America, show can you even possibly have the nerve to call this site Pakistani?

tera baap server ke pesa deta hai?

 

[AR]

you insult me with a technology owned by me using my language? hmm ironic isn't it?

may I add the servers for this website is based in America, show can you even possibly have the nerve to call this site Pakistani?

english is not your native language.... you abandoned you your native american language... english is native language of england and not of USA

 

[gambit]

According to this dropout logic, a cave man possesses a stone tool that other cave men don't have is relatively wealthier than a modern man who has a refrigerator or a micro-stove as now nearly everybody has it.

Looks like this 'dropout logic' is more than you could bear. The cave man who possesses a tool other cave men do not have is wealthier than they but poorer than the modern man who has a fridge. But your illogic is understandable since communism make everyone as poor as a cave man in order to make everybody 'equal'. No wonder communists are always angry. Everybody else has more common sense and logic than they are...

 

[Obambam]

Looks like this 'dropout logic' is more than you could bear. The cave man who possesses a tool other cave men do not have is wealthier than they but poorer than the modern man who has a fridge. But your illogic is understandable since communism make everyone as poor as a cave man in order to make everybody 'equal'. No wonder communists are always angry. Everybody else has more common sense and logic than they are...

Actually no. Communism has changed a great deal since Mao's era. Deng Xiaoping kick started a change to the system. He wanted to modernize China and wanted it to happen at all cost via the quickest route possible. This is reflected by his famous speech "I don't care if it is a black cat or a white cat, so long it catches mice then it's a good cat." China social system is opposite of what the west has adopted.

The importance lies on the overall importance of the country and then gradually works its way down to the individual. Democrazy on the other hand starts with the individual and then works its way up to build the overall importance of the country.

Despite what the west thinks, they do not have the rights to change how other countries are ran. Likewise, China has been around much longer than the US and they too do not have the rights to change what the American's beliefs in. Respecting one another is the most important thing here.

America has done well and China is doing equally as well for themselves and even Russia is so amazed with China's progress that their president are always coming over for talks on regional stability, economy and military to military issues. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what China has achieved since late 1970's. They are already the second wealthiest in the world and the largest creditor.

 

[applesauce]

Actually no. Communism has changed a great deal since Mao's era. Deng Xiaoping kick started a change to the system. He wanted to modernize China and wanted it to happen at all cost via the quickest route possible. This is reflected by his famous speech "I don't care if it is a black cat or a white cat, so long it catches mice then it's a good cat." China social system is opposite of what the west has adopted.

The importance lies on the overall importance of the country and then gradually works its way down to the individual. Democrazy on the other hand starts with the individual and then works its way up to build the overall importance of the country.

Despite what the west thinks, they do not have the rights to change how other countries are ran. Likewise, China has been around much longer than the US and they too do not have the rights to change what the American's beliefs in. Respecting one another is the most important thing here.

America has done well and China is doing equally as well for themselves and even Russia is so amazed with China's progress that their president are always coming over for talks on regional stability, economy and military to military issues. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what China has achieved since late 1970's. They are already the second wealthiest in the world and the largest creditor.

i dont think gambit differentiates between types of communism nor how significantly communism has changed, china actually had cold war allies denounce it when china choose to open up.

 

[RVS_108]

Sino-US war


ofcors US will win.


some chinese people might be thinking tht US took some Loan frm Chinese bank So US is a poor nation ,dont u think tht it was just a Diversion to show the world tht US is losing money in US led war, just question urself tht How US can lose its money/Economy in US-WAR when the WAR itself is a life of US Economy "WarEconomy".

Do u really think tht US policy makers are tht stupid tht to show its enemies about the " US economy " ???

 

[Bigoren]

Sino-US war


ofcors US will win.


some chinese people might be thinking tht US took some Loan frm Chinese bank So US is a poor nation ,dont u think tht it was just a Diversion to show the world tht US is losing money in US led war, just question urself tht How US can lose its money/Economy in US-WAR when the WAR itself is a life of US Economy "WarEconomy".

Do u really think tht US policy makers are tht stupid tht to show its enemies about the " US economy " ???

Well,of course no one will look down/underestimate to us power due to their savage around the world.BTW,how you definately sure us will win then?No one think us is poor nation and that is just your perception that think other people think that us is a poor nation ,for your advise--dont put your perception on other people to this issue.

 

[below_freezing]

Maybe this is merely an elaborate ploy to provoke the chinese establishment to act more rash. There was a reasonable parity between the soviet state and america. The same cannot ever be said about china. Perhaps the US is hoping it would give the chinese an incentive to act prematurely and lash out against some of its regional opponents- namely, taiwan, japan, india- thus giving everyone the perfect excuse to push china back to the stone age? In the event of aggression the US can gain the support from the more reclusive
powers to act and coordinate a joint strike. This is just my assumption- please excuse my over active imagination.

Yeah, you tried the exact same thing in the korean war, and failed. Go to the "Can China be Defeated" thread and see why trying to push China to the stone age is impossible (well, it is, but the US will go down too)

 

[ZhengHe]

you insult me with a technology owned by me using my language? hmm ironic isn't it?

may I add the servers for this website is based in America, show can you even possibly have the nerve to call this site Pakistani?

YOUR technology? sorry what is your name again?

your language? oh you mean the British language because there's no such thing as the American language

 

[gambit]

Yeah, you tried the exact same thing in the korean war, and failed. Go to the "Can China be Defeated" thread and see why trying to push China to the stone age is impossible (well, it is, but the US will go down too)

Yes...China can be defeated.

In every country that is accepted by peers, meaning neighbors, there is a single authority who will administer the land, guide the citizenry, and defend the borders. A civil war is when there are factions competing for the rights and privileges of those responsibilities. It does not matter if that authority is gained by force or by democratic consensus. What matter is that authority is recognized by neighbors and that they are compelled by any reason to interact with that authority and no one else.

So what would constitute a 'defeat' of an authority? The best recent example is Iraq, as in Desert Storm. The Saddam government, the authority in Iraq, lost control of the borders, lost communication with the citizenry, and lost administration of the land. No matter how temporarily that was until the Allies decided to withdraw when they were within 100 miles of Baghdad, that period of incapacitation was determined by outsiders and therefore Iraq as a political entity was quite defeated.

So can China be defeated? Yes. If the Chinese government lost communication with its citizenry and if the PLA could not defend the borders, China is vulnerable to losing administration of the land. That vulnerability does not have to be exploited by the victor. After besting the PLA and sending the civilian leadership running for survival, the victor could just leave China to the mercies of neighbors. A defeat does not necessarily entail total control of the people, no matter that period of control, as in an invasion to secure that control. A defeat simply mean an authority was rendered ineffective for a time, leaving the country and the people vulnerable to the mercies of outsiders, who may or may not be charitable.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Yes...China can be defeated.

In every country that is accepted by peers, meaning neighbors, there is a single authority who will administer the land, guide the citizenry, and defend the borders. A civil war is when there are factions competing for the rights and privileges of those responsibilities. It does not matter if that authority is gained by force or by democratic consensus. What matter is that authority is recognized by neighbors and that they are compelled by any reason to interact with that authority and no one else.

So what would constitute a 'defeat' of an authority? The best recent example is Iraq, as in Desert Storm. The Saddam government, the authority in Iraq, lost control of the borders, lost communication with the citizenry, and lost administration of the land. No matter how temporarily that was until the Allies decided to withdraw when they were within 100 miles of Baghdad, that period of incapacitation was determined by outsiders and therefore Iraq as a political entity was quite defeated.

So can China be defeated? Yes. If the Chinese government lost communication with its citizenry and if the PLA could not defend the borders, China is vulnerable to losing administration of the land. That vulnerability does not have to be exploited by the victor. After besting the PLA and sending the civilian leadership running for survival, the victor could just leave China to the mercies of neighbors. A defeat does not necessarily entail total control of the people, no matter that period of control, as in an invasion to secure that control. A defeat simply mean an authority was rendered ineffective for a time, leaving the country and the people vulnerable to the mercies of outsiders, who may or may not be charitable.

I don't think that it takes too much effort to figure it out but the 'fancy story' you posted earlier is true for every country, yours too.


There are so many ifs and buts in your post...

 

[below_freezing]

Yes...China can be defeated.

In every country that is accepted by peers, meaning neighbors, there is a single authority who will administer the land, guide the citizenry, and defend the borders. A civil war is when there are factions competing for the rights and privileges of those responsibilities. It does not matter if that authority is gained by force or by democratic consensus. What matter is that authority is recognized by neighbors and that they are compelled by any reason to interact with that authority and no one else.

So what would constitute a 'defeat' of an authority? The best recent example is Iraq, as in Desert Storm. The Saddam government, the authority in Iraq, lost control of the borders, lost communication with the citizenry, and lost administration of the land. No matter how temporarily that was until the Allies decided to withdraw when they were within 100 miles of Baghdad, that period of incapacitation was determined by outsiders and therefore Iraq as a political entity was quite defeated.

So can China be defeated? Yes. If the Chinese government lost communication with its citizenry and if the PLA could not defend the borders, China is vulnerable to losing administration of the land. That vulnerability does not have to be exploited by the victor. After besting the PLA and sending the civilian leadership running for survival, the victor could just leave China to the mercies of neighbors. A defeat does not necessarily entail total control of the people, no matter that period of control, as in an invasion to secure that control. A defeat simply mean an authority was rendered ineffective for a time, leaving the country and the people vulnerable to the mercies of outsiders, who may or may not be charitable.

The "loss of communication and authority" is not going to occur though. As Chogy had said: Realistically, there is no nuclear capable political entity in this world that will collapse from an outside invasion before it launches its ICBMs. With the currently experimental stage of the US missile defense program, and an unknown number of ICBMs on our side (known 150), plus the ability to nuke Russia and Europe to force it to nuke the US, plus the ability to nuke Japan and SK to force them to pressure the US to not try the invasion, any such attempt at cutting off the ability of the government and military to communicate with the citizens of China will be quite a setback for all of civilization. Obviously, the US has the same ability, it cannot be rationally conquered from the outside.

This is why the US is not only investing heavily in physical defense technologies but also in psychological warfare and propaganda. Some countries cannot be rationally defeated from the outside, but some, such as the USSR, can be subject to temporary mind control or to control by traitors. Luckily, the US controlled traitors in China are marginalized and the mind control rendered ineffective.

 

[aakash_2410]

Military prowess

USA - No. 1 [Can destroy any country it wants to]
China - No. 2 [Modernising its' military really fast but still a long way to catch up with america]
Russia - No. 3 [They still can't accept that their soviet era legacy is long dead]
India - No. 4 [Strong army and modernising as well but wastes too much energy on its' west border]
UK - No. 5 [Used to be world's best military at the time of british empire but still pretty modernised]

Rest of the country doesn't matter as far as militaries are concerned. You guys might be thinking I'm being biased by including india and uk. But check it for yourself.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

 

[gambit]

The "loss of communication and authority" is not going to occur though. As Chogy had said: Realistically, there is no nuclear capable political entity in this world that will collapse from an outside invasion before it launches its ICBMs. With the currently experimental stage of the US missile defense program, and an unknown number of ICBMs on our side (known 150), plus the ability to nuke Russia and Europe to force it to nuke the US, plus the ability to nuke Japan and SK to force them to pressure the US to not try the invasion, any such attempt at cutting off the ability of the government and military to communicate with the citizens of China will be quite a setback for all of civilization. Obviously, the US has the same ability, it cannot be rationally conquered from the outside.

This is why the US is not only investing heavily in physical defense technologies but also in psychological warfare and propaganda. Some countries cannot be rationally defeated from the outside, but some, such as the USSR, can be subject to temporary mind control or to control by traitors. Luckily, the US controlled traitors in China are marginalized and the mind control rendered ineffective.

No one said anything about an invasion of mainland China. The US can render ineffective all but the nuclear elements of the PLA without setting a single boot on mainland China. Weakened enough, China will be considered 'defeated' by neighbors.