China’s weapons exceed self-defence needs, says US

[ahussains]

its seems to clear that the time to wooried is just started for the US form CHINA ....

and its Alarming the UNIPOLAR world ....

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

chill, aren't you already addicted to repressions in Chinese history?

history is everything behind you, specially when you're felling into catathymic amnesia.

one has to know where he was from,in order to know where he's going.

How sagacious!

Sun Tsu come to judgement!

Water finds it own slope!

 

[gpit]

The foundation of Sino-US relationship is based on the three communiqués. The Three Communiqués

Specifically, the 3rd communiqué ( August 17, 1982) states: The Three Communiqués

“Having in mind the foregoing statements of both sides, the United States Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, that its arms sales to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms, the level of those supplied in recent years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, and that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution. In so stating, the United States acknowledges China's consistent position regarding the thorough settlement of this issue.”

But, article (5) of a US internal law “Taiwan Relations Act”, approved on April 10, 1979 by US 96th Congress, states: “ to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; ” This opens a US internally lawful route to sale arms to a province of a sovereign country that it recognizes! (I wonder what US would react if a country followed the example and sold her arms to Taxes or New York!)

The fact of US arms sale to Taiwan stands as follows: Arms Control Association: Fact Sheets: U.S. Conventional Arms Sales to Taiwan

U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan Since 1980 (values not adjusted for inflation):
Fiscal Year U.S. Government Arms Agreements U.S. Government Arms Deliveries U.S. Commercial Arms Deliveries
2002 $71 million $1.5 billion $135 million
2001 270 million 1.18 billion 29 million
2000 135 million 923 million 15 million
1999 559 million 2.5 billion 15.5 million
1998 440 million 1.5 billion 173 million
1997 353 million 2.5 billion 261 million
1996 451 million 834 million 20 million
1995 208 million 1.3 billion 28 million
1994 361 million 845 million 262 million
1993 6.3 billion 815 million 346 million
1992 478 million 711 million 96 million
1991 474 million 548 million 160 million
1990 508 million 460 million 150 million
1989 525 million 353 million 85 million
1988 501 million 484 million 195 million
1987 507 million 368 million 210 million
1986 509 million 243.5 million 228 million
1985 697.5 million 338 million 54 million
1984 704 million 298 million 70 million
1983 695.5 million 389 million 85 million
1982 523 million 386 million 75 million
1981 286 million 373 million 67 million
1980 455 million 209 million 58 million

Thus, PRC views US as “talking with tongue in cheeks”, and US is not happy with and has a hostile view towards Chinese system. A lack of trust between PRC and USA is obvious, regardless of an offer of “stake-holder” position to China by US (if the Chinese would believe).

It's not defensive and it's not smart. The PRC is not ready. The PRC could use these monies far more profitably developing their commercial and social infrastructure. No nation is more vulnerable to maritime strategies of interdiction and blockade. Their intentions, as Adm. Keating indicated, are well-studied, known, and very premature.

PLAN/PLAAF/PLA are firmly on our radar.

If viewed on PRC side, however, it is her best defense and is very smart.

No matter how good the commercial and social infrastructures are, a country lack of sufficient deterrence is prone to manipulation by powers, and that renders those infrastructures futile. ( BTW, US are, unfortunately, notorious in manipulating other countries with military forces.)

For instance, Chinese Song Dynasty boasted high level of civilization (ideology, finance, social welfare, legal system, bureaucracy&#8230, but was weak in military. And all reduced into ruins under Mongolia iron hoofs. More recently, if the Chinese hadn’t successfully repelled the US led army away from her boundary with Korea, probably Manchuria would be under UN control, and probably US army would dare to cross 17 parallel during Vietnam war. Who knows. (BTW again, PRC was never ready for the Korean War.)

Readiness starts with un-readiness. Mature grows out from premature. We don’t see any maturity on American side in 1812 war, for instance.

 

[S-2]

"If viewed on PRC side, however, it is her best defense and is very smart."

If asserting de facto unilateral control over the Straits of Taiwan is "very smart", then the apex of this brilliance will be the diplomatic assurances to Russia, S. Korea, Japan, and America that this is, indeed, smart for those nations too.

I don't believe that's the case. Neither shall that notion be easily sold to the aforementioned concerned parties- three of whom are major naval powers who depend upon global maritime commerce for their economic well-being. That includes the unfettered and safe transit of goods through the Straits of Formosa.

"Chinese Song Dynasty boasted high level of civilization (ideology, finance, social welfare, legal system, bureaucracy…), but was weak in military. And all reduced into ruins under Mongolia iron hoofs."

So too when Uighar ponies ride through the streets of Beijing. Until then, no viable military threat of ATTACK to the PRC exists, to include the United States and Russia.

"I wonder what US would react if a country followed the example and sold her arms to Taxes [sic] or New York!"

Is Texas and New York in the market to buy arms? Taiwan seems to be. Where lies the difference in this flawed assumption?

Peaceful reunification or none at all. Taiwan has no reason to drag itself down by returning to the fold. They'd only end up looking like most of China-dirt poor and neglected by the "socialist" mandarins now in power. There's no net improvement thus no incentive.

The PRC must improve it's selling points. A better-armed PRC doesn't impress the Taiwanese people. A self-sustaining PRC with infrastructure and open markets for Taiwanese (and others) goods/services might. The PRC remains WAY behind the power-curve here.

 

[gpit]

"If viewed on PRC side, however, it is her best defense and is very smart."

If asserting de facto unilateral control over the Straits of Taiwan is "very smart", then the apex of this brilliance will be the diplomatic assurances to Russia, S. Korea, Japan, and America that this is, indeed, smart for those nations too.

I don't believe that's the case. Neither shall that notion be easily sold to the aforementioned concerned parties- three of whom are major naval powers who depend upon global maritime commerce for their economic well-being. That includes the unfettered and safe transit of goods through the Straits of Formosa.

1, In short to medium term, keep status quo of Taiwan Straits is in the best interest of US. In longer term, however, it would probably be in better US interest if a larger market can be accessed with less resistance, compared with what Taiwan can offer.

2, Taiwan is viewed by the Chinese as their KEY national interest with sound reasons, whereas it does not seem so, and shouldn’t be so, to US: since US’s culture + proximity is overwhelmingly of European centric, and what US wants is just to prolong her dominance, as understandable.

Thus, American politicians have to weigh between the two, should the optimal two-market access can’t be kept simultaneously: choose to have a hefty market of 1.4 billion people with only some loss in morality, or otherwise accompanied with a heavy toll. There is a chance that American politicians would probably waltz merrily with the first choice, given a. US past moral track-records, b. Vietnam experiences, c. fatness of the mainland market, d. the heaviness of the toll which is proportional to PRC military power, etc.

As added bonus, if China is truly a stake-holder, either granted by others or achieved through her own efforts, all other holders of the stake will enjoy a sweat deal, more or less. Then why should maritime commerce or economic well-being be a concern?

In contrast, the results of the second choice afore-mentioned will probably bring forth truly unpredictable economic damages, and beyond, to all.

Peaceful reunification or none at all. Taiwan has no reason to drag itself down by returning to the fold. They'd only end up looking like most of China-dirt poor and neglected by the "socialist" mandarins now in power. There's no net improvement thus no incentive.

The PRC must improve it's selling points. A better-armed PRC doesn't impress the Taiwanese people. A self-sustaining PRC with infrastructure and open markets for Taiwanese (and others) goods/services might. The PRC remains WAY behind the power-curve here.

Selling point is important, but not determinate.

Is alleged possession of MDW by Saddam is a good selling point to American people, or to Iraq people, or to the world?

As a nation of a core civilization, PRC has no way out but to enhance her military efforts to progress through the curve. In comparison, Japan or SK doesn’t have to.

Unfortunately, the people of Taiwan don’t have much to wield for their future but juggle some trickery. Taiwan is nothing but a pawn on a grand chess board. The game is all up to RPC and USA.

Finally, given respective nuclear power, a Straits conflict may well be unpredictable and end USA and PRC with the same or similar dirtiness.

 

[mxiong]

Neither shall that notion be easily sold to the aforementioned concerned parties- three of whom are major naval powers who depend upon global maritime commerce for their economic well-being. That includes the unfettered and safe transit of goods through the Straits of Formosa.

Oh really? But major commercial ship line is to the east of Taiwan Island, nothing to do with the Taiwan Strait. I guess its just like the WMD in Iraq, U.S. can always find a "good" excuse to **** all over the world.

 

[S-2]

"But major commercial ship line is to the east of Taiwan Island, nothing to do with the Taiwan Strait."

Please explain the presence of Kaohsiung, the world's sixth largest container port, on the Straits of Taiwan?

We'll defend Taiwan, however difficult, from your clutching, grasping claws. Peaceful reunification or none at all. You've nothing tangible to offer Taiwan.

"I guess its just like the WMD in Iraq, U.S. can always find a "good" excuse to **** all over the world."

Have you read the Duelfer Report? It doesn't seem so. I doubt that you shall but I'll nonetheless provide it to you.

The Complete Duelfer Report

Here's the way I feel on this matter. Iraq will never invade Kuwait, Iran, or any other neighbor anytime soon as they had done TWICE since 1980. Saddam Hussein is dead. The baath party is dismantled and thousands of Kurds no longer worry about dying from chemical weapons as a repeat of the al-Anfal campaign. Iraq had a determination to acquire all means of WMD and a demonstrated history of use. No longer is it an issue.

WMD is not in the foreseeable future of Iraq. That's a very good development.

Enjoy your day.

 

[zhongchao]

祝登陆巴基斯坦网站的爱国的中国人春节快乐！也希望汉奸们断子绝孙。

 

[zhongchao]

some USA are SB.

 

[zhongchao]

what did you say?I do not understand.For up URLS,I must say,I want you watch some war videos about Chinese PLA.

 

[zhongchao]

中印战争A-视频-优酷视频-中印战争A vs India war

 

[zhongchao]

朝鲜战争-视频-优酷视频-朝鲜战争. China vs USA war

 

[zhongchao]

专辑播放 中越战争 vs Vietnam war

 

[mxiong]

Have you read the Duelfer Report? It doesn't seem so. I doubt that you shall but I'll nonetheless provide it to you.

The Complete Duelfer Report
.

Uncle Sam, you need to improve your Internet literacy to prevent being called the ”Harddisk Cult"...

 

[S-2]

Try This One

As much as it pains me to download from the University of Michigan (Go Wisconsin Badgers!!), this should get it.

Nonetheless, with your superb internet literacy, it should be no problem at all for you to download for yourself.