Technology: China reboots its superpower ambitions...

[powastick]

And How did the Qing dynasty lose Hong Kong in the first place?
It was humility and the egalitarian values of the communist movement that saved China and made China strong today. The prideful and arrogant Qing acted tough and superior but was rotten all the way through.

I disagree. China cannot avoid being perceive as a threat. The only way is to castrate yourself. Are you willing to take that humiliation?

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

I disagree. China cannot avoid being perceive as a threat. The only way is to castrate yourself. Are you willing to take that humiliation?

Since when does the opinions of others matter?

Lao Tzu is right. When you worry about what other think you become their prisoner.

Humility is often confused with weakness when its the opposite.

 

[powastick]

Since when does the opinions of others matter?

Lao Tzu is right. When you worry about what other think you become their prisoner.

Humility is often confused with weakness when its the opposite.

Lao Tzu isn't a statesman. Lao Tzu philosophy may suit societal level but not between nations. The only acceptable path to them, is being a eunuch like Japan.

 

[TaiShang]

Both sides @powastick , @+4vsgorillas-Apebane et al. have valuable insights that are not necessarily exclusive or contradictory. Perhaps, first, be strong. Then remain cautiously/watchfully humble.

The world is simply too complicated, warlike, and dangerous to have rosy dreams of unicorns - especially in the realm of nation states.

Gather power without being aggressive.
Stay benign without allowing others to breach your interests.

 

[Cybernetics]

It's not a matter of whether China wants to become a superpower or not. China is being pushed into that direction by the forces of economics and security(survival). China's resources cannot fully support its economy or population, thus heavily reliant on imports of agricultural goods, minerals, high tech products and exports of manufactured goods. If China closes its doors, millions will starve, export industries will suffocate (leading to higher costs at home due to moving up the cost curve by producing less), innovation slows, cost of minerals skyrocket, political instability. The only way forward towards prosperity is to continue trade and also protect that vital trade which China currently lacks the ability to protect. A2/AD is only for defending the homeland from physical invasion but does nothing to protect its interests. If Chinese ships are blocked in foreign ports or open waters far from the home ports, what good are some missiles? Especially now with THAAD in South Korea, the effectiveness of these missiles are put into question. One can argue that China can just trade on land across the OBOR but its still in its infancy with many countries on route to Europe being unstable. OBOR on land also doesn't have direct access to Africa or the Americas. The only way forward for China is to have a navy(space, com networks, air force, ships, logistics, etc.) that will be able to rival the US navy. It doesn't have to be as powerful but enough to discourage conflict. Whether that is achievable or not is up to debate, but I don't see if China is on the path towards becoming a "superpower" (hate using that word) as a thing to debate.

 

[Suika]

It's not a matter of whether China wants to become a superpower or not. China is being pushed into that direction by the forces of economics and security(survival). China's resources cannot fully support its economy or population, thus heavily reliant on imports of agricultural goods, minerals, high tech products and exports of manufactured goods. If China closes its doors, millions will starve, export industries will suffocate (leading to higher costs at home due to moving up the cost curve by producing less), innovation slows, cost of minerals skyrocket, political instability. The only way forward towards prosperity is to continue trade and also protect that vital trade which China currently lacks the ability to protect. A2/AD is only for defending the homeland from physical invasion but does nothing to protect its interests. If Chinese ships are blocked in foreign ports or open waters far from the home ports, what good are some missiles? Especially now with THAAD in South Korea, the effectiveness of these missiles are put into question. One can argue that China can just trade on land across the OBOR but its still in its infancy with many countries on route to Europe being unstable. OBOR on land also doesn't have direct access to Africa or the Americas. The only way forward for China is to have a navy(space, com networks, air force, ships, logistics, etc.) that will be able to rival the US navy. It doesn't have to be as powerful but enough to discourage conflict. Whether that is achievable or not is up to debate, but I don't see if China is on the path towards becoming a "superpower" (hate using that word) as a thing to debate.

All countries strive to seek greater power for their interests. It is not helpful to word things like "being pushed into the direction" because it applies to all nations. What one nations gains in security by gaining relatively greater power comes in exchange for the relative power of another country to weaken. And thus the weakened power feels pushed into having to become stronger for their own interest. The only way out of this security dilemma is with compromise and transparency and accountability. Compromise so the interest of all parties are satisfied. And transparency and accountability so that mutual trust can be developed. China lacks both..

 

[TaiShang]

The only way out of this security dilemma is with compromise and transparency and accountability. Compromise so the interest of all parties are satisfied. And transparency and accountability so that mutual trust can be developed. China lacks both..

And the US or Japan has plenty of both?

What is transparency, after all, once a nations gathers huge power, it will be visible and hence transparent.

As for accountability, that is a misnomer. Accountability is for public policy, not for international diplomacy.

How transparent or accountable the US is all depends on which side of the equation you are standing. Same goes with China.

What appears accountability to some of China's neighbours appears to be threatening to others.

In the end, absolute power dictates whether others will accept the reality of your will or not. Just like Russia or the US are doing in Syria now.

Neither of them are perfectly transparent or accountable.

But, once they move in the field, all the small actors, including the ISIS, simply complies.

 

[Suika]

And the US or Japan has plenty of both?

What is transparency, after all, once a nations gathers huge power, it will be visible and hence transparent.

As for accountability, that is a misnomer. Accountability is for public policy, not for international diplomacy.

How transparent or accountable the US is all depends on which side of the equation you are standing. Same goes with China.

What appears accountability to some of China's neighbours appears to be threatening to others.

In the end, absolute power dictates whether others will accept the reality of your will or not. Just like Russia or the US are doing in Syria now.

Neither of them are perfectly transparent or accountable.

But, once they move in the field, all the small actors, including the ISIS, simply complies.

Transparency is showing what the government of a country plans for the military. We know how many Naval vessels are planned. The US Navy recently announced a new design that calls for 355 combat warships that includes 12 carriers. The Japanese self-defense has what are called "outlines" that show the basic strategy and equipment to be acquired in a period of 10 years or so. So in Japan's case, it currently calls for maintaining a force of 54 destroyers of all types and 22 submarines. But what about China's? How many Type 55 destroyers do they plan on making? How many Type 75 LHDs do they plan on making? How many carriers do they plan on making? How many J-20s do they plan on making? The best we seem to have are reports that are ambiguous. And there was literally no warning about the beginning of the large land reclamation in the Spratly islands and the construction of three large air bases in there. Sometimes correct, sometimes not, but generally short sighted, with the exception of carriers, which seem to be plans for 6 carriers eventually. The problem with this uncertainty is that it makes it difficult to gauge a proper response by other countries to strike a fair balance of power. I am not saying that there is something wrong with China in developing these new military hardware. But it is their policies and lack transparency

Accountability actually does matter. If a government can be held accountable by the people, then the government has less control over the people. And less control on the people means lower capability to mobilize the country towards expansion. This is why democracy is important. It is more difficult to mobilize a democratic country towards war. Sure there are many examples of the democratic US going to war, but what is also evident is the US tends to lack the ability to go through an entire conflict because the population becomes squeamish and no longer wants to stay involved.

I think it is easy for those that support China's expansion to speak in terms of the necessity of absolute power when the US is tired of conflict because the ME and Afghanistan and when Japan is stuck in pacifism. But do you seriously want to introduce the same philosophy to the Americans and Japanese? We saw that dynamic before WW1 and WW2. China's assertiveness in the South China Sea has revitalized the US back towards thinking in terms of classical military power as oppose to just counter terrorism operations. And same assertiveness has awakened Japan out of the pacifism slumber. Do we really want to keep going with this? The US and China will disagree of course on Taiwan, North Korea, and Japan will of course disagree with China with the Senkaku islands and history. But it was China's military expansion in the South China Sea that over did it that snapped the US and Japan into a more serious gear and got those two countries into building deeper defense relations with other countries in the region such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, and India.

 

[powastick]

Transparency is showing what the government of a country plans for the military. We know how many Naval vessels are planned. The US Navy recently announced a new design that calls for 355 combat warships that includes 12 carriers. The Japanese self-defense has what are called "outlines" that show the basic strategy and equipment to be acquired in a period of 10 years or so. So in Japan's case, it currently calls for maintaining a force of 54 destroyers of all types and 22 submarines. But what about China's? How many Type 55 destroyers do they plan on making? How many Type 75 LHDs do they plan on making? How many carriers do they plan on making? How many J-20s do they plan on making? The best we seem to have are reports that are ambiguous. And there was literally no warning about the beginning of the large land reclamation in the Spratly islands and the construction of three large air bases in there. Sometimes correct, sometimes not, but generally short sighted, with the exception of carriers, which seem to be plans for 6 carriers eventually. The problem with this uncertainty is that it makes it difficult to gauge a proper response by other countries to strike a fair balance of power. I am not saying that there is something wrong with China in developing these new military hardware. But it is their policies and lack transparency

Accountability actually does matter. If a government can be held accountable by the people, then the government has less control over the people. And less control on the people means lower capability to mobilize the country towards expansion. This is why democracy is important. It is more difficult to mobilize a democratic country towards war. Sure there are many examples of the democratic US going to war, but what is also evident is the US tends to lack the ability to go through an entire conflict because the population becomes squeamish and no longer whats to stay involved.

I think it is easy for those that support China's expansion to speak in terms of the necessity of absolute power when the US is tired of conflict because the ME and Afghanistan and when Japan is stuck in pacifism. But do you seriously want to introduce the same philosophy to the Americans and Japanese? We saw that dynamic before WW1 and WW2. China's assertiveness in the South China Sea has revitalized the US back towards thinking in terms of classical military power as oppose to just counter terrorism operations. And same assertiveness has awakened Japan out of the pacifism slumber. Do we really want to keep going with this? The US and China will disagree of course on Taiwan, North Korea, and Japan will of course disagree with China with the Senkaku islands and history. But it was China's military expansion in the South China Sea that over did it that snapped the US and Japan into a more serious gear and got those to countries into building deeper defense relations with other countries in the region such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, and India.

US is transparent? Lol, where are the chem weapons? Saddam Hussein responsible for September 11? WMD, nuclear? If US had accountability, persecute George Bush then. Now millions dead, and they keep spinning.

 

[Suika]

US is transparent? Lol, where are the chem weapons? Saddam Hussein responsible for September 11? WMD, nuclear? If US had accountability, persecute George Bush then. Now millions dead, and they keep spinning.

Let's try not to be so quick in laughing on complex matters. I agree with you sentiment about the US's invasion of Iraq on the basis erroneous allegations. But Saddam's Iraq did lack transparency as well. But it is quite a different magnitude than being next to huge country that is developing its military at a rapid pace with aggressive assertiveness that goes contrary to international law. It leaves surrounding countries no choice but to get serious.

George Bush is out of office, as well as many of his men. Persecution might be appropriate, but nonetheless, he's out of office. Can't be done with CCP.

 

[powastick]

Let's try not to be so quick in laughing on complex matters. I agree with you sentiment about the US's invasion of Iraq on the basis erroneous allegations. But Saddam's Iraq did lack transparency as well. But it is quite a different magnitude than being next to huge country that is developing its military at a rapid pace with aggressive assertiveness that goes contrary to international law. It leaves surrounding countries no choice but to get serious.

George Bush is out of office, as well as many of his men. Persecution might be appropriate, but nonetheless, he's out of office. Can't be done with CCP.

No you do not get it. If you are 'really' familiar with US government, you wouldn't say this.

 

[AndrewJin]

No you do not get it. If you are 'really' familiar with US government, you wouldn't say this.

Just another false flagger.
Very similar tone

 

[Jlaw]

China has lots internal problems to fix. I hope brothers are humble here, our ancestry warned us, Qian Shou Yi, Man Zhao Sun. Shu Da Zhao Feng. Pride can be in our bones, but please be humble especially you're arguing with other people have a different cultural background, my 2 cents.

China should not pursue to be a SUPER POWER, every super power will eventually decline, the more valuable strategy is how to survive longer than others, how to survive better than others.

Bullshit

You are absolutely right.
Humility will lead to Chinese greatness. Pride always comes before the fall.



And how did the Qing dynasty lose Hong Kong in the first place?
It was humility and the egalitarian values of the communist movement that saved China and made China strong today. The proud and arrogant Qing acted tough and superior but was rotten all the way through.

Qing lost because it did not want to be great. It thought it was great and stopped innovation. You're asking China to repeat latter qing 2.0

Since when does the opinions of others matter?

Lao Tzu is right. When you worry about what other think you become their prisoner.

Humility is often confused with weakness when its the opposite.

Lao Tzu was no military strategist. Scholars never become emperors.

 

[terranMarine]

Forget about humbleness, do what must be done to revive the ancient status: the world's biggest economy, a title which had been held by Imperial China since ancient times.

 

[shadows888]

Let's try not to be so quick in laughing on complex matters. I agree with you sentiment about the US's invasion of Iraq on the basis erroneous allegations. But Saddam's Iraq did lack transparency as well. But it is quite a different magnitude than being next to huge country that is developing its military at a rapid pace with aggressive assertiveness that goes contrary to international law. It leaves surrounding countries no choice but to get serious.

George Bush is out of office, as well as many of his men. Persecution might be appropriate, but nonetheless, he's out of office. Can't be done with CCP.

Last laugh is on you. Bush is chilling with his weed in his Texas ranch and Dick Cheney is making millions with his book sales and billions from Halliburton in Iraq. A million Iraqi lives weren't worth those two because USA is a superpower and the Iraqis were weak and got screwed. End of story.