World War III between the U.S. and China?

[Ray]

"However, when the US intervened, all voices quit." Who quit? China?

Those who were against the US undertaking the exercises.

'World over' doesn't mean China, notwithstanding your false perception that China is the world or even the Middle Kingdom.

Please understand if I am not here to enlighten you about world events or opinion.

Google.

If Google is not allowed in China, it is your problem and not that of mine or the posters or of the world that you are ignorant enough to waste time over issues that is known to all who are keen to know.

Please refrain from wasting our time wanting us to enlighten you of what is the obvious and know to all but you!

Niceguy, do not test my patience please even with your inanity with others!

 

[Bhadra]

it is ur own dream.

Those who dream only do things and find success.

Mao also dreamt.

 

[niceguy2011]

enlighten me ? .........

I m the one show things which you did not know before.

Those who were against the US undertaking the exercises.

'World over' doesn't mean China, notwithstanding your false perception that China is the world or even the Middle Kingdom.

Please understand if I am not here to enlighten you about world events or opinion.

Google.

If Google is not allowed in China, it is your problem and not that of mine or the posters or of the world that you are ignorant enough to waste time over issues that is known to all who are keen to know.

Please refrain from wasting our time wanting us to enlighten you of what is the obvious and know to all but you!

Niceguy, do not test my patience please even with your inanity with others!

 

[Ray]

Niceguy,

Let me give you some friendly advice

水能載舟，亦能覆舟

Not only can water float a boat, it can sink it also.

 

[niceguy2011]

Those who dream only do things and find success.

Mao also dreamt.

Mao made China a powerful country , not dreaming China is a powerful country.

 

[SPIEZ]

bye bye LOL guy !

Rest assured I ll miss you!

 

[Bhadra]

Mao made China a powerful country , not dreaming China is a powerful country.

The worst dream of the Chinese is their dream of their territory that is why the game of Go focussed on gain of territory is so hugely popular amongst the Chinese.
Chinese have an illogical view on territory whereas Indians never considered territory limited by Political control but by ideological or religious controls. Indians considered territory under Buddhism as their own. Communism could never reconcile with each others countries.

Chinese "irredentist" attitude towards territory has its roots in China's history, its ancient philosophy of the "middle kingdom" with a "mandate from heaven," and with peripheral nations as its vassals. "The 'century of humiliation' starting with Britain's opium wars in the mid-19th century have left a deep mark on the Chinese psyche. So, any attempt at a 'separation' of their 'territory' reminds them of the past. That history is kept intact in their culture, songs, school syllabus, and cinema. It's the political folklore in China, and breeds a sense of super-nationalism in the Chinese.

That hunger for territory will be the undoing of China!

 

[Tianshan]

It's the political folklore in China, and breeds a sense of super-nationalism in the Chinese.

That hunger for territory will be the undoing of China!

super-nationalism! i like that.

nationalists are not necessarily stupid though. many americans and russians are very nationalist too.

 

[civfanatic]

A country like China which keeps 2/3 of their entire territory and population (Tibet and Xinjiang) under the barrel of guns and boots can not think of becoming a superpower even in wild dreams.

The Chinese require to free those areas and give those autonomous status so that people can follow their culture and breath in freedom.

What does giving freedom to the people have to do with becoming a superpower?

Stalin did not exactly give his people freedom but he made the USSR a superpower regardless.

Even the U.S. kept its entire African-American population under the barrel of the gun. Until relatively recently African-Americans were not even granted the same civil rights as Whites.

Basically, your logic makes no sense.

 

[asianobserve]

What does giving freedom to the people have to do with becoming a superpower?

Stalin did not exactly give his people freedom but he made the USSR a superpower regardless.

Even the U.S. kept its entire African-American population under the barrel of the gun. Until relatively recently African-Americans were not even granted the same civil rights as Whites.

Basically, your logic makes no sense.

The logic makes sense if you want to be a long term super power. A country cannot sustain itself without internal harmony. But artificial harmony through iron fist is bound to unravel. All that is needed is a match to light up the whole place. Then the other competing superpower can just sit back and watch as that unstable superpower tear itself apart. Remember your idol the USSR?

 

[civfanatic]

The logic makes sense if you want to be a long term super power. A country cannot sustain itself without internal harmony. But artificial harmony through iron fist is bound to unravel. All that is needed is a match to light up the whole place. Then the other competing superpower can just sit back and watch as that unstable superpower tear itself apart. Remember your idol the USSR?

Democracy leads to internal harmony only when a large portion of the population identifies strongly with a certain ethnic, linguistic, and/or religious group. A certain degree of homogeneity is needed in order for there to be a "national consensus" on certain national values, which then serve maintain internal stability. In the absence of homogeneity, democracy leads to anything but "internal harmony". You can see in India how democracy has been plagued with casteism, communalism, regionalism, and every sort of divisive politics imaginable.

In America, Whites and Christians make up three-fourths of the population. This allows for certain national values to be pushed forward and internal stability to be maintained. In China, the population is even more homogeneous, with over 90% of the population being Han. This allows the CCP to maintain internal stability through promoting ethnic nationalism while simultaneously using capitalism to encourage Chinese citizens to focus on economic enrichment rather than political issues. Ethnic minorities form a very small percent of the population of China so they can easily be kept under control. Social homogeneity, or the lack of it, is a far more important factor in the internal stability of a nation than the extent of political freedoms.

The USSR is a good example of what can happen if a highly heterogeneous country tries to increase the level of freedom too rapidly in a short amount of time. If Gorbachev had avoided glasnost and instead focused on economic reforms like Deng had, the USSR could have easily survived and continued into the 21st century as a superpower.

 

[asianobserve]

Democracy leads to internal harmony only when a large portion of the population identifies strongly with a certain ethnic, linguistic, and/or religious group. A certain degree of homogeneity is needed in order for there to be a "national consensus" on certain national values, which then serve maintain internal stability. In the absence of homogeneity, democracy leads to anything but "internal harmony". You can see in India how democracy has been plagued with casteism, communalism, regionalism, and every sort of divisive politics imaginable.

In America, Whites and Christians make up three-fourths of the population. This allows for certain national values to be pushed forward and internal stability to be maintained. In China, the population is even more homogeneous, with over 90% of the population being Han. This allows the CCP to maintain internal stability through promoting ethnic nationalism while simultaneously using capitalism to encourage Chinese citizens to focus on economic enrichment rather than political issues. Ethnic minorities form a very small percent of the population of China so they can easily be kept under control. Social homogeneity, or the lack of it, is a far more important factor in the internal stability of a nation than the extent of political freedoms.

The USSR is a good example of what can happen if a highly heterogeneous country tries to increase the level of freedom too rapidly in a short amount of time. If Gorbachev had avoided glasnost and instead focused on economic reforms like Deng had, the USSR could have easily survived and continued into the 21st century as a superpower.

Democratisation was not the culprit in the USSR (Gorbachev realised the futility of continued totalitarian control), it was the naive suddenness of it by Gorbachev that did it in. Note that the USSR after decades of repression was a bomb waiting to be lit and the sudden glasnost and perestroika was the match that lit it. This is the problem with totalitarian societies. People there are closet democrats who will burst out of their closets once given the oportunity.

China learned from the history of the USSR. Hence, it has been slowly unscrewing its totalitarian control. Although I belive the CCP has no intentions of letting go of its uncontested control of the country (this is a serious sticking point since Chinese people are now tasting affluence and the perks that go with it, I doubt if they will willingly agree to be tightly controlled, politically, for long).

 

[kickok1975]

U.S. can turn China in stone age very easily.

U.S. has 12 Super CBG, China has 0.
U.S. has 1,000 4.5 generation aircraft, China has 0.
U.S. has 150 odd 5th generation aircraft, China has 0.
U.S. has 400 submarines, China has 50.
U.S. has 1,000 warships, China has 100.
U.S. has 60-65 military bases outside U.S., China has 0.

U.S. has 15,000 stockpiles of Nuke with 4,000 BM MiRV, China has 1/10th max.
U.S. has 4 layer of Defence shield, China has 0-1 layer.

U.S. Missile is located around few hundred Km at east and west side of China (S.K., Japan, Philipiness, Singapore, Europe). China Missile is far away around 5,000-10,000 Km. (U.S. can destroy China from China neighbouring countries, But China can't do anything since U.S. is 7,000 Km away)

U.S. has 3,00,000 army personnel around China or can move there if needed, China has 0 beyond mainland nor it has capability to do so.

80% GDP of the world is directly/Indirectly with U.S., China has 10%-15%.

U.S. has huge reserve of Crude oil + half of Middle-east, Canada, South America. China don't have even 10% control.

U.S. spent around 6 trillion $ on defence in last decade and China GDP is not more than 6 trillion $.


U.S. defence = Rest of the world. Comparison is humiliation. U.S. is provoking China, If China accepts, It will lose otherwise it will also lose. U.S. did very hard work for 100 years to reach here. It's unchallengeable as of now.

Very ignorant post.

 

[asianobserve]

You missed something Galaxy, "... and China is acting like a very bad case of a neuveau riche. It's is diplomatically isolating itself in Asia, even without US diplomatic initiative."

 

[Ray]

Gorbachev was the God's gift to the US.

He was vainglorious. He revelled in the adulation heaped on him by the West.

He was followed by Yeltsin, the drunk!

Had Gorbachev eased the totalitarianism and yet held some control over the State and the citizens as Putin is doing, Russia would not come to such a sorry pass.

One cannot have rapid changes of State functioning and the attunement of psychology of its people as if a miracle can occur. It has to be gradual and weighing the pros and cons.

China benefited for the stupidity of Gorbachev and did not follow his path.

China survived and then launched into a path that has brought her to the position she is and without losing control of the State machinery or of its people!

 

[W.G.Ewald]

He was vainglorious. He revelled in the adulation heaped on him by the West.

It the States this adulation was called a "Gorbasm."

 

[asianobserve]

Gorbachev was the God's gift to the US.

He was vainglorious. He revelled in the adulation heaped on him by the West.

Like China? Drunk on hyping by the West?

 

[agentperry]

but from all past world wars, usa never started it but ended it, they always bailed out others from war, who will be that partner this century? what kinda innovations will come after the ww3? will usa win like preceding two wars? will it take a religion route to end or to start?

many questions. but this is a fact- if it ever happen just the way written here, usa will be fighting three ww and still alive with might just as powerful as it was 100 years back... wow

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Now If it`ll be between US and China then for what does 'WORLD' stands for in World War III?

 

[Ray]

China is not foolish.

They back-down when needed and give some very peace loving platitudes to cover their fear and weak kneed behaviour.

They only appreciate a tough stand.

It is all in their psyche ingrained in their Theory of Legalism!

Ideal psyche of bullies who are otherwise cowards or weak hearted.