The Great Chinese Thread-jack

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oscar_IHB
  • Start date Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
O

Oscar_IHB

Guest
I'm continuing this conversation from the day trading thread:

[quote author="Oscar" date=1231384311][quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1231368900][quote author="ABC123" date=1231349532][quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1231296804]



5-6K Dow is still my target assuming we dont have a major war with either Russia, China or US involved with whoever else. Then I'd say Dow to 2K.

</blockquote>


Do you think a major war could be a real probability?</blockquote>


Take China...They f'ed up royaly by limiting how many females per household they can have or females in general. Now there is an inbalance between male/female population. What do you do? put all those men to work as new factories are popping up left and right. Wait a sec...they are shutting down left and right now because of the economy. What does that extra testasterone do since it can't mate and start a family? they riot...this is what currently is happening in China today. How does a government get rid of riots and these extra males? Start a war. The country gains by defeating its foes, and gains by losing some of its own males to create balance.



Thoughts?</blockquote>
It's actually worse than that. Five years ago, I calculated that by next year they will have ~14.7 MILLION more men of fighting age than women of childbearing age. The raw data came from <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=2">the UN's own projections.</a> Essentially they could lose 14 million males between the ages of 15 and 40 <strong>and still maintain parity between men and women of reproductive age!</strong> And China just moved to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10132348-38.html">block all internet porn</a>. If a minimum military division consists of 10,000 men, China could soon have 1400 divisions of formerly unemployed, frustrated, angry men ready to fight.



In contrast, the United States has a total armed force of ~2.8 Million if you include reserves. The only thing working in our favor is that China isn't prepared for war at sea and Russia is a much closer and more tempting target.</blockquote>


[quote author="WINEX" date=1231387185][quote author="Oscar" date=1231384311]



In contrast, the United States has a total armed force of ~2.8 Million if you include reserves. The only thing working in our favor is that China isn't prepared for war at sea and Russia is a much closer and more tempting target.</blockquote>


And we have better trained warfighters, weapon systems, and logistics systems to supply our people with food, fuel, and ammunition. Russia had problems supplying their own troops when they fought Afghanistan, and they share a border with Afghanistan. Forget about either China or Russia being able to fight a war half way around the world.</blockquote>


[quote author="skek" date=1231389581]I think I mentioned this a while back, but American military intelligence was surprised at the poor performance of the Russian army during the Georgian incursion -- even though Russia routed the Georgians, their ability to project conventional military power was anemic at best. The Russian army, through neglect and poor training, is at this point not much more effective than any other developing nation's military.



Obviously, the big caveat are the nukes.



China on the other hand is rapidly trying to develop a first world military, and they are doing it strategically. They have plans to develop and deploy an aircraft carrier, and other than the US, they are the only nation currently undertaking such a program (UK and France I believe have their plans on hold). Also, through aggressive espionage, they are working to neutralize American air and naval superiority by stealing our next generation stealth and sonar technology. I had the honor of visiting a naval carrier group at sea during exercises not too long ago and they told stories of the cat and mouse games they would play with Chinese subs. In short, the Chinese subs are rudimentary in firepower compared to ours, but they have the stealth capability to sneak up alongside an American carrier or into an American port. You can figure out what that means.



I don't think the US will go to war with either Russia or China on account of the nukes. Nor do I think Russia and China go to war because of the nukes. All three have too much to lose. If things go from bad to worse in the global economy, my prediction is one of two outcomes: (1) internal civil unrest that could destabilize either the Chinese or Russian governments, with all its attendant problems, and/or (2) a return to the Cold War meme of proxy wars and banana republics, with the added dimension of non-state, transnational proxies.



The new dimension that has all the foreign policy scholars fascinated is the economic interdependence that now exists between the US and China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. By all accounts, Russian belligerence caused foreign investment to flee the country which has crushed their economy and exerted more pressure than US diplomacy ever could. It remains to be seen how those three countries notch up their adversarial positions, while maintaining the trade they all require for survival.



For the record, I am more worried about Russia than China in the mid term (next 10-15 years). The Chinese trajectory is up, while the Russian trajectory is down. I see the potential for a rise in militant nationalism in Russia with fewer opportunities for economic growth and an increasingly desperate leadership trying to hang on to power by any means necessary. You want a doomsday scenario, imagine Russia as a Yugoslav-style failed state...</blockquote>
 
I think traditional war is almost dead. The USA won the fight in Iraq but I believe it will lose that war. Look what happened to Britain and Iraq at the turn of the last century.



Going forward the war will be a terrorist war. Why attack the US when you can bring it to its knees with a dozen fanatics with bombs strapped to them in public places?
 
[quote author="skek" date=1231389581]I think I mentioned this a while back, but American military intelligence was surprised at the poor performance of the Russian army during the Georgian incursion -- even though Russia routed the Georgians, their ability to project conventional military power was anemic at best. The Russian army, through neglect and poor training, is at this point not much more effective than any other developing nation's military.



Obviously, the big caveat are the nukes.



China on the other hand is rapidly trying to develop a first world military, and they are doing it strategically. They have plans to develop and deploy an aircraft carrier, and other than the US, they are the only nation currently undertaking such a program (UK and France I believe have their plans on hold). Also, through aggressive espionage, they are working to neutralize American air and naval superiority by stealing our next generation stealth and sonar technology. I had the honor of visiting a naval carrier group at sea during exercises not too long ago and they told stories of the cat and mouse games they would play with Chinese subs. In short, the Chinese subs are rudimentary in firepower compared to ours, but they have the stealth capability to sneak up alongside an American carrier or into an American port. You can figure out what that means.



I don't think the US will go to war with either Russia or China on account of the nukes. Nor do I think Russia and China go to war because of the nukes. All three have too much to lose. If things go from bad to worse in the global economy, my prediction is one of two outcomes: (1) internal civil unrest that could destabilize either the Chinese or Russian governments, with all its attendant problems, and/or (2) a return to the Cold War meme of proxy wars and banana republics, with the added dimension of non-state, transnational proxies.



The new dimension that has all the foreign policy scholars fascinated is the economic interdependence that now exists between the US and China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. By all accounts, Russian belligerence caused foreign investment to flee the country which has crushed their economy and exerted more pressure than US diplomacy ever could. It remains to be seen how those three countries notch up their adversarial positions, while maintaining the trade they all require for survival.



For the record, I am more worried about Russia than China in the mid term (next 10-15 years). The Chinese trajectory is up, while the Russian trajectory is down. I see the potential for a rise in militant nationalism in Russia with fewer opportunities for economic growth and an increasingly desperate leadership trying to hang on to power by any means necessary. You want a doomsday scenario, imagine Russia as a Yugoslav-style failed state...</blockquote>
Russia faces NATO, and are therefore limited in their potential targets. I think proxy wars between Russia, the EU, and/or China are pretty likely if gas and oil continue to be used as a pawn by Russia.



You bring up a good point about the current Chinese military build-up being strategic. They could make quite an internal boost to their GDP with a heavy investment in military research and production. Given the current economic climate, I would suspect that "modernization" programs will be one area where China spends it surplus. I think the current lack of troop transports and support/defensive ships to guard them is rather telling.



From a strategic standpoint, Russia makes a better target for China than we do because they have something that we don't: actively productive oil and gas fields. At most, China will prepare to neutralize the American naval advantage to prevent our involvement in any war. But we weren't the only ones watching Russia's performance in Georgia. Furthermore, I think any instability in Russia would only invite a direct confrontation. It makes more sense to hit pre-selected targets when confusion reigns rather than when a government is unified and strong.



My thoughts are a bit scattered today, but I'm endlessly fascinated by China's potential on the world political stage. I'd love to read what other people think about it.
 
[quote author="Stuff It" date=1231392052]I think traditional war is almost dead. The USA won the fight in Iraq but I believe it will lose that war. Look what happened to Britain and Iraq at the turn of the last century.



Going forward the war will be a terrorist war. Why attack the US when you can bring it to its knees with a dozen fanatics with bombs strapped to them in public places?</blockquote>


Spending a Trillion Dollars in Iraq in the hope of spreading democracy was a total waste.

You would be better off investing with Bernie Madoff. Trying to justify it with WMD`s

and all the other lies is what will make that war look like a lose to the American People

and to history.



We must engage the youth of Iran and overcome Wahhabism as practiced in Saudi Arabia.

Remember Wahhabism is what was represented in the attacks of 9/11.

Fighting poor Muslim people in ghettos with American Troops is NOT going to work. EVER.
 
Here is some military data.



Armed Forces Personnel

#1 China: 2,810,000

#2 Russia: 1,520,000

#3 United States: 1,366,000

#4 India: 1,303,000

#5 Korea, South: 683,000



Tanks

#1 Russia: 21,000 tanks

#2 United States: 16,000 tanks

#3 China: 11,000 tanks

#4 Poland: 3,200 tanks

#5 Germany: 2,300 tanks



Air force personnel

#1 United States: 370,300

#2 India: 110,000

#3 Korea, North: 85,000

#4 France: 78,100

#5 Germany: 76,200



Weapon Holdings

#1 United States: 38,538,000

#2 China: 34,281,000

#3 Korea, North: 17,634,000

#4 Israel: 15,985,000

#5 Syria: 11,905,000



Navy Personnel

#1 United States: 380,600

#2 Brazil: 68,250

#3 Taiwan: 68,000

#4 Thailand: 64,000

#5 France: 63,300



<a href="http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/mil-military">Here is where I got this data...</a>
 
You Forgot a few little items.



Intercontinental ballistic missile capability

Ballistic missile submarines

Aircraft Carriers

Strategic Bombers.



If we are going to do "war" we need to use the tools of the past that work.

Example: Mutual assured destruction.



It keeps the peace. For some reason we have lost our ability to advise our potential

enemy of out intent if attacked. Even if its by its rogue citizens.



Break the rules that are fair and diplomatic. And you will suffer total war and destruction.

Never mind your Oil.
 
Well I wasnt going to list everything...thats why I provided the link. Plus I don't think this site even has that much detail listed. They have other pointless items though. I'll keep looking.
 
Sorry for changing the subject, but I read your post right after I read the headline "Russia stops all gas supply to Europe via Ukraine" which sounds scary even if Russia has threatened to cut gas supplies before.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1231393814]You Forgot a few little items.



Intercontinental ballistic missile capability

Ballistic missile submarines

Aircraft Carriers

Strategic Bombers.</blockquote>
ICBM: USA, 9200; Russia, 16,800; China, 400

Missile Subs: USA, 18; Russia, 12; China, 3 (maybe only 2)

Aircraft Carriers: USA, 12; Russia, 1; China, zero (as of right now)

Bombers: USA, hundreds; Russia, hundreds; China, 120 (russian-built)



<blockquote>If we are going to do "war" we need to use the tools of the past that work.

Example: Mutual assured destruction.



It keeps the peace. For some reason we have lost our ability to advise our potential

enemy of out intent if attacked. Even if its by its rogue citizens.



Break the rules that are fair and diplomatic. And you will suffer total war and destruction.

Never mind your Oil.</blockquote>
Look around you... modern life is filled with oil-based products, including the keyboard upon which you type your reply. The world is slowly realizing that having a nuke gets you a seat at the table, while simultaneously realizing that no one is ever going to use one to settle a dispute again. M.A.D. is no longer a deterrent because no country will use them to win a war that is winnable by conventional means.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1231392998][quote author="Stuff It" date=1231392052]I think traditional war is almost dead. The USA won the fight in Iraq but I believe it will lose that war. Look what happened to Britain and Iraq at the turn of the last century.



Going forward the war will be a terrorist war. Why attack the US when you can bring it to its knees with a dozen fanatics with bombs strapped to them in public places?</blockquote>


Spending a Trillion Dollars in Iraq in the hope of spreading democracy was a total waste.

You would be better off investing with Bernie Madoff. Trying to justify it with WMD`s

and all the other lies is what will make that war look like a lose to the American People

and to history.



We must engage the youth of Iran and overcome Wahhabism as practiced in Saudi Arabia.

Remember Wahhabism is what was represented in the attacks of 9/11.

Fighting poor Muslim people in ghettos with American Troops is NOT going to work. EVER.</blockquote>


Not sure why US doesn't use the same approach it uses with the rest of the world. Send in McDonalds.
 
[quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1231400202]Very interesting points. I think you guys are right. The use of nuclear is probably very low considering the stakes. In this case you want to see China be a top player because it will have more at stake as you said skek, limiting its desire to use nuclear weapons. Only concern is Russia. Russia has more nukes than anyone, but no food. That country is rich with natural resources, but with corruption as well. </blockquote>
Why do you think they've been blatantly considering any deployment of anti-missile missiles an act of aggression? They know that their power comes from the nuclear threat and any "missile shield" renders them impotent. They have resorted to the only thing they have left and that is intimidation, aggression, and ransom. The world will only put up with it for so long before Russia is embargoed out of existence.



<blockquote>Finance and Military go hand in hand. You almost have to be dominant in first in order to continue to be dominant in the second. This is another concern of mine as I don't feel that US has as much to offer to the world as it did a decade ago. We need something new. Thats why I think whoever invents the next source of energy that replaces oil will be the next superpower. Especially if it comes in a very small form and exerts enormous energy. Saying that who will invent it, US's pipeline of engineers is going cold. Company I follow, Cisco systems is creating incentive programs to recruit engineers, but it isn't meeting demand. They are now recruiting anybody that is willing to come around the globe.</blockquote> The British invented RADAR, we perfected it and then learned to negate it. The Germans invented jets, but we supply the most planes to the world's airlines. The USSR was the first into space, but we won the race. We will do the same with any new tech that comes along because we reward innovation with personal wealth. The engineer crisis is a global issue, I doubt people will be rushing to China or India for work. Not only do we have the highest standard of living but, as someone else pointed out earlier, we can almost feed the world by ourselves. That means we will always have something to offer, especially if we actually let our farmers utilize the land to maximum benefit and allow them to charge whatever the market will bear.



<blockquote>As far as China having piss poor human rights...well its a shame, but I don't blame them. America had piss poor human rights too during its growth stages. We did everything from human testing, slavery, child labor and restriction of womens rights. I'm sure as time passes, China will change things, but they have come a long way regardless</blockquote> Let's not leave out the wholesale slaughter of the American Indian. The difference is our changes were driven internally, and China seems to be going in the opposite direction. Either way, the only rights people get are the ones they fight for and that chapter of Chinese history has yet to be written.



Russia is a wild card, no doubt. But I think China is the only real threat to our way of life. I don't know that they desire a new Sino-centric hegemony, it just doesn't seem like it would require too much effort on their part if they wanted to make that change. Considering the public's reaction to a "pre-emptive war in Iraq", what do you think would happen if 10 million Chinese troops showed up on our beaches?
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1231409685] what do you think would happen if 10 million Chinese troops showed up on our beaches?</blockquote>


Considering america has no friends (even the Europeans hate us) and China has Russia and Iran as allies, all nuclear powers, we'd be royally screwed.
 
[quote author="asianinvasian" date=1231413088][quote author="Oscar" date=1231409685] what do you think would happen if 10 million Chinese troops showed up on our beaches?</blockquote>


Considering america has no friends (even the Europeans hate us) and China has Russia and Iran as allies, all nuclear powers, we'd be royally screwed.</blockquote>
Well, technically NATO would require Europe to come to our defense. That means Britain would invade Hong Kong, Germany and Spain would condemn the Chinese, Italy and Greece would expel our ambassadors, and France would immediately surrender. Poland and Isreal would probably be the only countries to fire a shot.



What I meant was, given the total lack of any appetite for war and the way the country seems to have shifted towards social democracy, would the citizenry even put up token resistance?
 
I think you guys are focusing way to much on the the "Big 2", but have left out the volatile ones who usually cause the problem. If you are looking for a war that draws everyone in, then look no further than to those great friends Pakistan and India. We will have a war between two democracies before we have one between two communists ones.



India is surging and Pakistan is becoming a 4th world country faster than most thought possible. The lack of control within their own borders will cause issues with India. China will side with Pakistan in order to blunt the influence of India in Asia. Let's face it as long as the US is supplying both sides, we win and this world could do with a few 100 million less people, black, white, brown, yellow, Muslim, Catholic, Hindu.
 
China needs India, NT. We're feeding their growth with outsourced jobs and educational facilities which allows them to purchase Chinese exports. Pakistan is broke and unstable, not exactly an ideal trading partner. Pakistan might try to start a fight, but IMO China certainly isn't going to help them do it.
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1231423068]China needs India, NT. We're feeding their growth with outsourced jobs and educational facilities which allows them to purchase Chinese exports. Pakistan is broke and unstable, not exactly an ideal trading partner. Pakistan might try to start a fight, but IMO China certainly isn't going to help them do it.</blockquote>


I agree that China will not help them in a fight, but to say they will remain neutral and not gain from India's distraction is not the cards.



China has one of the fastest growing outsourcing industries. They handle English speaking along with Japanese. The Chinese are educating their people to be a more efficient India. I ran an outsourcing project in India and the people we had were nice for basic things, but ask them to apply business acumen and they wilted. They were consistently late, always had a reason why something didn't happen on time, are masters of arguing small details to avoid the big issues and never told you no, for fear of losing face.



In my dealings with the Chinese, they are much more western in their business approach, although they don't like to tell you "no" either. The Chinese get the job done and this is why I think they will take advantage of a border war in Kashmir that distracts India's attention in the IT and outsourcing industry to make some significant jumps from a manufacturing to service business model.



I think Russia is more likely to go the way of Jugoslavia, breaking into fractional countries based on ethnic lines. People can only go unpaid for a while before they rise up out of hunger, anger and vengeance. They will blame their leaders for a failed dream and they will pay with their lives. Russia's fragments will learn to play nice with their natural resources and will be better off for it. I think countries like Ukraine will be more willing to accept hikes in natural gas prices from a country that is more their equal than an imperial power longing for yesterday's arrangement, although they will kick them while they are down for a few years ;-)
 
[quote author="Newport Trojan" date=1231427666]China has one of the fastest growing outsourcing industries. They handle English speaking along with Japanese. The Chinese are educating their people to be a more efficient India. I ran an outsourcing project in India and the people we had were nice for basic things, but ask them to apply business acumen and they wilted. They were consistently late, always had a reason why something didn't happen on time, are masters of arguing small details to avoid the big issues and never told you no, for fear of losing face.



In my dealings with the Chinese, they are much more western in their business approach, although they don't like to tell you "no" either. The Chinese get the job done and this is why I think they will take advantage of a border war in Kashmir that distracts India's attention in the IT and outsourcing industry to make some significant jumps from a manufacturing to service business model.</blockquote>
Well, as a Dell customer, it's nice to know that "Steve" will soon be replaced with "Dave". Although, I am now concerned about the work habits of the Indian software engineers currently employed in America. :gulp:



If China is indeed aiming to move from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, then I will quit worrying about them. We did the same thing over the last 30 years and now we can't even manage two relatively small wars at the same time.
 
<em> The British invented RADAR, we perfected it and then learned to negate it. The Germans invented jets, but we supply the most planes to the world's airlines </em>



A number of sources designate Sir Frank Whittle (Coventry, England) as the 'co-inventor' of the jet engine (with German, Hans von Ohain) rather than the sole inventor. This is not correct.



Facts provided by Sir Frank Whittle's son, Ian, clarify the true course of events :



The turbo jet was patented in 1930.

The patent details entered the public domain 1931.

The German Embassy in London despatched copies of the patent to Germany 1932.

Copies of the patent to Goettingen, Heinkel, Junkers, Brunswick and elsewhere.

Von Ohain a student at Goettingen (Aerodynamic Research Division) 1934/5.

Von Ohain begins to study the possible application of the internal combustion jet to aeronautics in 1934.

Herbert Wagner at Junkers and Ohain at Heinkel begins turbo jet development April 1936.

The 'popular' belief that von Ohain invented the turbo jet has been generated in America and is unsound history.



Von Ohain invented a unique form of internal combustion turbine. Heinkel employed him to develop this for jet propulsion. After five years, the project was abandonned and Ohain was put to work on turbo jets designed by other engineers.



Von Ohain only claimed to have 'invented' the turbo jet about 25 years after the end of World War II when Wagner et al were safely out of the way. He may have been encouraged in this by his fellow German-Americans and also by Americans who are uncomfortable with the impact of the British invention.





<a href="http://www.cwn.org.uk/heritage/people/whittle/biography.html">Source CWN</a>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top