Chinese Foreign Affairs News & Discussions
- Thread starter Max The Boss
- Start date
xuxu1457
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 4,633
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
?????????????????14.4??? - ????-???
Defense Ministry spokesman said in 28th, Chinese Defense Ministry website and ＣＰＬＡ net were attacked at average 144000times per month in 2012, in which 62% come from America　
xuxu1457
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 4,633
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Chinese president Xi leaves for four-nation tour
Chinese president Xi leaves for four-nation tour - Xinhua | English.news.cn
BEIJING, March 22 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Xi Jinping left Beijing Friday morning for state visits to Russia, Tanzania, South Africa and the Republic of Congo.
Xi is making the visit at the invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Tanzanian President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, South African President Jacob Zuma and President of the Republic of Congo Denis Sassou Nguesso.
Xi will also attend the fifth leaders' summit of BRICS countries, to be held from March 26 to 27 in Durban, South Africa.
BRICS is an economic bloc representing five of the world's leading emerging economies, including China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.
Chinese president Xi leaves for four-nation tour - Xinhua | English.news.cn
BEIJING, March 22 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Xi Jinping left Beijing Friday morning for state visits to Russia, Tanzania, South Africa and the Republic of Congo.
Xi is making the visit at the invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Tanzanian President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, South African President Jacob Zuma and President of the Republic of Congo Denis Sassou Nguesso.
Xi will also attend the fifth leaders' summit of BRICS countries, to be held from March 26 to 27 in Durban, South Africa.
BRICS is an economic bloc representing five of the world's leading emerging economies, including China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
North Korea is stirring the pot
Let's be clear about who is primarily responsible for the tension. It is North Korea.
South Korea, the U.S., and China don't want war. South Korea doesn't want Seoul damaged. The U.S. has budget problems and the sequester constrains U.S. spending. China cares about economic growth and much less about military conflicts.
Stalinist North Korea is different from South Korea (that follows American dictates), because North Korea does not obey China. We have a "wild card" player.
A serious conflict on the Korean peninsula has unforeseeable consequences. The losers will be North and South Koreans. However, China will most likely benefit and extend its physical control into North Korea.
If South Korea is sufficiently weakened, China may decide to annex South Korea too. For example, if North Korea successfully detonates an atomic bomb over Seoul then the South Korean government/country will no longer exist. That's China's green light to assert control over the entire Korean peninsula. If Koreans cannot responsibly manage the vital land east of Beijing then China should exert sovereignty.
While this may result in short-term disruptions, China should gain from a military standpoint in the long term.
Also, with the destruction of Samsung, Chinese and Chinese-Taipei companies should fill the economic vacuum. This will provide plenty of breathing space for Lenovo, Huawei, and ZTE smartphones in worldwide markets. Chinese-Taipei AU Optronics should benefit from the eradication of South Korean LCD competitors (e.g. no more Samsung and LG chaebols to worry about).
In conclusion, a serious war between North and South Korea may result in a net benefit militarily and economically for China and Chinese-Taipei. Since China cannot stop a Korean War, perhaps we should start planning to benefit from a post-war scenario.
Let's be clear about who is primarily responsible for the tension. It is North Korea.
South Korea, the U.S., and China don't want war. South Korea doesn't want Seoul damaged. The U.S. has budget problems and the sequester constrains U.S. spending. China cares about economic growth and much less about military conflicts.
Stalinist North Korea is different from South Korea (that follows American dictates), because North Korea does not obey China. We have a "wild card" player.
A serious conflict on the Korean peninsula has unforeseeable consequences. The losers will be North and South Koreans. However, China will most likely benefit and extend its physical control into North Korea.
If South Korea is sufficiently weakened, China may decide to annex South Korea too. For example, if North Korea successfully detonates an atomic bomb over Seoul then the South Korean government/country will no longer exist. That's China's green light to assert control over the entire Korean peninsula. If Koreans cannot responsibly manage the vital land east of Beijing then China should exert sovereignty.
While this may result in short-term disruptions, China should gain from a military standpoint in the long term.
Also, with the destruction of Samsung, Chinese and Chinese-Taipei companies should fill the economic vacuum. This will provide plenty of breathing space for Lenovo, Huawei, and ZTE smartphones in worldwide markets. Chinese-Taipei AU Optronics should benefit from the eradication of South Korean LCD competitors (e.g. no more Samsung and LG chaebols to worry about).
In conclusion, a serious war between North and South Korea may result in a net benefit militarily and economically for China and Chinese-Taipei. Since China cannot stop a Korean War, perhaps we should start planning to benefit from a post-war scenario.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
And the US and the Japanese governments will stand by and do nothing. Got it...
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
China is the undisputed continental power in Asia
China is the supreme land power in Asia.
The U.S. is a maritime power.
If we're discussing annexing the Philippines then I would have to acknowledge it is currently not possible due to the strength of the U.S. Navy.
However, since we're discussing Korea, it is appropriate to ignore an offshore power like the United States.
If China chooses, it can also re-annex Mongolia. There's nothing the U.S. can do about it.
China is the supreme land power in Asia.
The U.S. is a maritime power.
If we're discussing annexing the Philippines then I would have to acknowledge it is currently not possible due to the strength of the U.S. Navy.
However, since we're discussing Korea, it is appropriate to ignore an offshore power like the United States.
If China chooses, it can also re-annex Mongolia. There's nothing the U.S. can do about it.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Iraq tried to 'annex' Kuwait. Looked what happened. No one will stand for annexation of another country. Do you even know what the word implies -- politically? Do you even understand from history on how dangerous that is? Apparently not.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
China is not Iraq
What's wrong with you? You make stupid analogies.
Did Iraq have at least 294 megatons of thermonuclear warheads like China?
Did Russia not annex 20% of Georgia in the year 2008?
You write mindless posts that waste my time. Try saying something intelligent.
China is a status quo power. It prefers not to rock the boat. However, if the Korean peninsula is already in flames then China should actively reshape the new geopolitical map.
What's wrong with you? You make stupid analogies.
Did Iraq have at least 294 megatons of thermonuclear warheads like China?
Did Russia not annex 20% of Georgia in the year 2008?
You write mindless posts that waste my time. Try saying something intelligent.
China is a status quo power. It prefers not to rock the boat. However, if the Korean peninsula is already in flames then China should actively reshape the new geopolitical map.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Annexation is about the taking of a territory that has sovereignty and making it your own. Effectively, the victim country no longer exist. Georgia is under Russian control but is still very much exist and recognized as Georgia.
Will China go nuclear against the US over Korea? You are dreaming. So it is YOU who are wasting our time with this fantasy.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
Why do you think China builds DF-41 10-MIRV ICBMs?
What do you think Chinese thermonuclear weapons are for? They deter the U.S. and allows China to pursue an independent foreign policy (see pictures below).
It is Chinese law that if Taiwan declares independence, China will annex Taiwan. In my opinion, it is easier for China to annex Korea then to cross 90 miles of ocean and annex Taiwan.
----------
New Chinese DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM picture!
Latest Chinese DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM picture. The truck tail-lights and wheel configuration are identical to a known DF-41 picture (see below). Also, the truck cabin has the exact same profile.
Known DF-41 ICBM picture due to double rings on canister. Wheels on a DF-41 TEL are all grouped together.
The only difference between the two pictures is the extra panels in the top picture. Otherwise, the wheel configuration (e.g. separation distance), four vertical yellow/red brake lights (including a bottom-most rectangular fifth white light in both pictures), and cabin shape are all identical. The protrusion of the DF-41 ICBM beyond the back of the truck is also about the same.
Wheel pattern/separation is very different on a DF-31A TEL (transporter erector launcher) compared to a DF-41 TEL.
[Note: Thank you to ChineseTiger1986 for the new top DF-41 ICBM picture. I flipped the picture horizontally to enable a direct comparison with the known DF-41 ICBM picture. Since I can't remember the source of the middle picture, I'll use the most likely probability and thank Greyboy2 for the known DF-41 ICBM picture.]
What do you think Chinese thermonuclear weapons are for? They deter the U.S. and allows China to pursue an independent foreign policy (see pictures below).
It is Chinese law that if Taiwan declares independence, China will annex Taiwan. In my opinion, it is easier for China to annex Korea then to cross 90 miles of ocean and annex Taiwan.
----------
New Chinese DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM picture!
Latest Chinese DF-41 10-MIRV ICBM picture. The truck tail-lights and wheel configuration are identical to a known DF-41 picture (see below). Also, the truck cabin has the exact same profile.
Known DF-41 ICBM picture due to double rings on canister. Wheels on a DF-41 TEL are all grouped together.
The only difference between the two pictures is the extra panels in the top picture. Otherwise, the wheel configuration (e.g. separation distance), four vertical yellow/red brake lights (including a bottom-most rectangular fifth white light in both pictures), and cabin shape are all identical. The protrusion of the DF-41 ICBM beyond the back of the truck is also about the same.
Wheel pattern/separation is very different on a DF-31A TEL (transporter erector launcher) compared to a DF-41 TEL.
[Note: Thank you to ChineseTiger1986 for the new top DF-41 ICBM picture. I flipped the picture horizontally to enable a direct comparison with the known DF-41 ICBM picture. Since I can't remember the source of the middle picture, I'll use the most likely probability and thank Greyboy2 for the known DF-41 ICBM picture.]
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Georgia, Mongolia, and Tibet are nowhere as geopolitically important as Kuwait, South Korea, Japan, or Viet Nam. Try to annex Viet Nam and see what happens.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
The Chinese military capability to annex Korea and Vietnam is there
Let's wait and see. You do not seem to understand that if China wants to annex Vietnam, there is nothing the U.S. can do except complain. The Chinese military capability is there, but it is not currently part of China's strategic focus on economic development.
By the way, a single megaton EMP detonation would neutralize all American military assets in Japan or Guam. Therefore, China merely has to detonate two EMP megaton warheads to reduce American military capability in Asia down to zero.
----------
China should come out swinging
1. If it's just a skirmish, it's not worth discussing.
2. If it's serious then China can annex North Korea and remove the irritant. If South Korea is mortally wounded, we might as well remove the Sino-American tension on the Korean peninsula and annex South Korea too.
The U.S. strategic objective is to move the U.S. Army to the Yalu River. China's strategic objective is to keep the U.S. military away from the Chinese border. If North Korea puts the Korean peninsula into play, China might as well get its hands dirty and come out swinging.
China is the supreme continental power in Asia. The U.S. is a maritime power. Rolling the PLA into a devastated Korean peninsula to gain control should take only one to two weeks.
Let's wait and see. You do not seem to understand that if China wants to annex Vietnam, there is nothing the U.S. can do except complain. The Chinese military capability is there, but it is not currently part of China's strategic focus on economic development.
By the way, a single megaton EMP detonation would neutralize all American military assets in Japan or Guam. Therefore, China merely has to detonate two EMP megaton warheads to reduce American military capability in Asia down to zero.
----------
China should come out swinging
GuangdongYan (on another forum) said:
1. If it's just a skirmish, it's not worth discussing.
2. If it's serious then China can annex North Korea and remove the irritant. If South Korea is mortally wounded, we might as well remove the Sino-American tension on the Korean peninsula and annex South Korea too.
The U.S. strategic objective is to move the U.S. Army to the Yalu River. China's strategic objective is to keep the U.S. military away from the Chinese border. If North Korea puts the Korean peninsula into play, China might as well get its hands dirty and come out swinging.
China is the supreme continental power in Asia. The U.S. is a maritime power. Rolling the PLA into a devastated Korean peninsula to gain control should take only one to two weeks.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Yeah...Sure...And the US will do nothing...
Apparently, you came from the stock of the PLA's leadership who predicted that the US would suffer 'massive' casualties in Desert Storm.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
Korean War part II
China and the United States have already fought a war on the Korean peninsula from 1950-1953. China's mistake was in not annexing North Korea the first time around. Today, I'm suggesting that China rectify that error.
Also, back in 1953, China did not have thermonuclear weapons. China did not develop a 3.3-megaton thermonuclear warhead until 1967 and the DF-5 ICBM delivery vehicle was not ready until 1971.
Due to President Truman's nuclear threats, China could not push the U.S. Army into the sea. This time, China will not extend such a courtesy to the U.S. military. Intervene at the risk of your own self-destruction.
Yeah...Sure...And the US will do nothing...
Apparently, you came from the stock of the PLA's leadership who predicted that the US would suffer 'massive' casualties in Desert Storm.
China and the United States have already fought a war on the Korean peninsula from 1950-1953. China's mistake was in not annexing North Korea the first time around. Today, I'm suggesting that China rectify that error.
Also, back in 1953, China did not have thermonuclear weapons. China did not develop a 3.3-megaton thermonuclear warhead until 1967 and the DF-5 ICBM delivery vehicle was not ready until 1971.
Due to President Truman's nuclear threats, China could not push the U.S. Army into the sea. This time, China will not extend such a courtesy to the U.S. military. Intervene at the risk of your own self-destruction.
