digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at airforcetimes.com

China Outlines Attack Plans on U.S.

airforcetimes.com — In a hypothetical future scenario, the U.S. and China are poised to clash — likely over Taiwan...Taiwan — which America backs and the communist People’s Republic of China considers part of its territory — frequently irritates Chinese leaders with calls for greater independence from the mainland. But while the American...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cashman57, on 01/22/2008, -17/+110If we continue to wear down our military in a pointless operation as we are in Iraq we will become more vulnerable to attack but I think China is more likely going to ruin us economically because they can.
    • BassMastr, on 01/22/2008, -12/+50Yeah That would make total sense. Destroy the economy of your largest customer and the fuel to your economic growth.
      • Waiting2awake, on 01/22/2008, -13/+17They don't have to cut it off completely - just tighten the yoke a bit more. You know, to induce more work out of the round-eye.
        • nospinhere, on 01/22/2008, -32/+16Libtards, take note. The enemy has a bead on you:

          "Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces."
          • moofer, on 01/22/2008, -4/+1Wow. That didn't take long.
          • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1because that worked so well before...idiot.
        • pyronik, on 01/22/2008, -24/+10ha i was just going to comment on that... the anti war left truely is the bane of our country... they are going to ruin us
          • christor, on 01/22/2008, -7/+20An economy heading toward the bottom of the tank, nearly five years into an ill-conceived, poorly planned, poorly executed, costly (and fundamentally dishonest) war, a political discourse that skews toward issues like abortion, homosexuality, and the Ten Commandments, habeas corpus restricted, phones tapped, torture approved, political corruption... and ... the US is threatened by ...

            the anti-war left? I could go on and on about how ridiculous this is. But I'm going to save myself some time and resort to ad hominen: You're an idiot.
          • The3rdMan, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2The estimated total cost of the war (everything; higher oil prices, effect on economy, etc.) is 2 trillion dollars....medicare/medicaid problem alone is going to cost us (are you ready?) EIGHTEEN trillion dollars....the war was poorly managed but economically not that much of a hit if you want to be honest.
        • ChromaticDragon, on 01/22/2008, -1/+22Anyone, including and especially China, who believes Somalia to be a textbook case of the American public's "abnormal sensitivity" to military casualties is simply INSANE.

          Somalia wasn't so much an "oh my!! Americans are dying. We cannot have that, pull them back" as an "umm... what's Somalia? why are we there? why were our helicopters in active use?" Despite the public opinion to get out of somehwere most people had no idea why we were there nor could see any benefit from it, we still were able to threaten Somalia very directly and powerfully with utter annihilation (from warships) in order to secure the release of a captive soldier.

          Sheesh. If we haven't pulled out of Iraq despite thousands of American casualties in a situation where half the population of the US don't want us to remain there, what in the WORLD makes anyone think we wouldn't respond forcefully and powerfully to a direct provocation?

          Furthermore, I would consider Pearl Harbor to be a much more appropriate textbook example here. If China achieves glorious success in a flawlessly executed series of surprise attacks, they may indeed enjoy a brief period of "freedom" from US aggression. (well... despite the initial set of attacks to disable completely their nuclear capability). But the US will shift into high gear, prepare accordingly and in a few years will accept China's complete and utter unconditional surrender.
          • lithera, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2I think the one thing people tend to forget is that China isn't the tightly-closed-commie-republic anymore as it was 15-20 years ago.

            China has grown rapidly, scaring rapidly, to meet western standards when it comes to economic and military standards. Their army is one to be afraid of, in numbers and hardware. They now have all the power they need to hurt the U.S. economicly big time. They've become a superpower and the U.S. Is on the verge of being a has-been.

            And, what I think will be the biggest advantage towards the U.S. Army is the fanatisism about their country.
            While the average American CIticen thinks of himself as a patriot, the average Chinese citicen is much much more passionate about their country and defending their way of life. They hate their governement but I'm pretty confident they would line up in millions to defend their country against the “barbaric west” A Chinese man is a hard, dedicated, tough, son of a bitch, trust me on that :)
        • DogBotherer, on 01/22/2008, -1/+7@ Chromatic Dragon: I was thinking pretty much exactly what you just typed, though I'm not quite so confident as you that it'd be an American whitewash. It'd be a nasty, messy, lethal war, the like of which we've never seen (WWI and WWII notwithstanding), which'd probably end up dragging in most nations on one side or the other and radically altering not just populations but also geographies - possibly beyond the capacity of the planet to recover. All in all, a scenario which is better avoided...
          • rootneg2, on 01/22/2008, -3/+1If China attacks the US (or vice-versa) it would be WWIII; especially if they plan on tossing a nuke out over the pacific.

            Definitely agree with ChromaticDragon; but i'm not so sure that a US victory would be so clear-cut.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3But you are being a bit myopic. We might be their biggest customers at the moment, but that will not always be the case.

        We are 350 million out of total world population of over 6 billion people. Europe is a big market, the middle east is emerging as a lucrative market. The rest of asia is providing China with a significant portion of their revenues. Even India, while currently tensions exist between them and China, will eventually be on friendlier terms and will provide a billion consumers to China.
    • gtluke, on 01/22/2008, -17/+8we have a million man army, and 150k in iraq, you suck at math
      • GoneFishing, on 01/22/2008, -9/+9And China has 1,400 Million population. In any instance the country goes to war, US will lose much more than they anticipate. Just like when Bush administration said it shouldn't take more than 6 weeks in Iraq.
        • houndeyex, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6...and then seven years later...
        • Treason, on 01/22/2008, -3/+1If we "go to war" with China, either side would really have a chance.
        • faskill, on 01/22/2008, -1/+41400 million? That's like 1.4 billion!
        • rayraym0fucka, on 01/22/2008, -4/+5I think he meant the gov't would be dismantled in six weeks. We beat the ***** out of their military. That was a cake walk. We are left with what are basically angry civilians with guns. It's very hard to fight an enemy you can't tell apart from the rest Iraqis.
          • rderveloy, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5"It's very hard to fight an enemy you can't tell apart from the rest Iraqis."

            I thought we would have learned that lesson from Vietnam.
        • Elranzer, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2In hand to hand combat, China historically always loses. Their large population really has nothing to do with it. They lost to Japan several times, and Japan's much smaller than the US. China has no chance of beating the US in combat. Their only chance is ruining the US financially (ala the Cold War).
          • googleabcd, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Don't forget China kicked your ass in korean war. At that time, China's military hardware was almost 0. Imaging now they have quite similar technology as US
        • PhilLesh69, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1Elranzer,

          China's historical track record should not provide a false sense of security. Yes, during the Korean war, they were sending 10 guys out with one rifle and telling the other 9 guys "When the guy in front of you drops his rifle, pick it up and fight". Sure. They also had no mentionable air force or sea force. They were fairly backward, economically, technologically and even in military doctrine.

          That isn't the case today. They have tactical and strategic missiles. They have a (largely littoral) naval force, including submarines. They have even developed land and space based methods of knocking out our satellites (GPS guided bombs are dumb bombs when they shut down enough of the GP satellites). They have their own satellite based defense systems. They have modernized their forces probably just as well as we have.

          They also build a portion of our HMMWV's (humvee?). Many of the integrated circuits and chips used in all manner of military applications come from China.

          I think we would have a pretty tough fight against the Chinese.
        • masterm1nd, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3China has 2,255,000 active troops. The US has 1,426,713 active troops.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ... .
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3How does he suck at math? He didn't even mention any numbers.

        We have 519,471 soldiers in the Army. 346,288 soldiers in the Army National Guard. 189,975 in the Army Reserves. Yes, that comes out to just over a million soldiers, but we do not have a million man army. We have a half-million man army.

        And half of all combat divisions received the lowest readiness rating in 2006. Last time I checked, 8 of the 10 active combat divisions have rotated through Iraq or Afghanistan. Readiness is the lowest it has ever been since just after the end of Vietnam.

        Tanks and Helicopters and Humvees wear out at extremely fast rates in operational environments, especially hot, sandy places like Iraq. Helicopter rotor blades need to be replaced often because of the sand. Tires wear out. Treads wear out. Just parking a bradley out in the sun lowers its lifespan dramatically.

        That is before you even count the equipment damaged by combat and IEDs

        The MATH of combat readiness of 5 of the 10 divisions in the Army being at the lowest rating is pretty obvious. Any major military that wanted to take a crack at us would have a better shot now than they ever had before.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 01/22/2008, -31/+12LETS VOTE FOR RON PAUL! After all, China would NEVER attack America, right?!?!...

      paulbots spin this into an "its america's fault!" argument in 3...2....
      • jeffsback2223, on 01/22/2008, -5/+18Shut up, Just shut up.
      • deadmann, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2And what does the article, no the description, say would be the main cause of such an event?
        • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1YEAY!!! MORE BLOWBACK!!! Sticking our ***** nose where it doesn't belong... Middle east, far east, near east, it's all the same.
    • OwdenBowden, on 01/22/2008, -14/+22In every war with China simulation ever run - Everyone loses against the Chinese. The only caveat to this is if the PEOPLE of the peoples republic of China do not support their governments actions and refrain from the fight. Then there is a possibility of victory. Either way it will be a global mess.

      As for the US military. As stated above - we do not have the troops and supports in place for any global conflict. In order to go head-tohead with any nation we would need to start drafting people now so that we are ready and able for a fight. I personally feel that we should seriously consider a mandatory military service for all persons able. If we look to the examples set by other nations that do this then you can see that all able body citizens pose a threat to any invading nation. Beside - it will possible help in giving direction and opportunities to those that are less fortunate (by offering FREE college tuition to all that server or even immediate job placement in your assessed speciailty).

      Finally - all of us Americans are to blame for what is taking palace in the world today as we have moved from Manufacturing and Suppling to worlds goods and wants; to being the lazy consumer relying on the Manufacturing and goods of other nations. It is a sad day when we are more concerned about Brittney Spears and if we can download songs on out phones than what they hell is happening to us in the world. We need to wake up and smell the imported coffee before it is too late and we are either speaking Chinese, Russian or some other language.
      • Spuy767, on 01/22/2008, -2/+22China's own military leader said that attacking the US directly would be futile. Reference how IAF pilot routinely kick the ***** out of opposing pilots who far outnumber them. A poorly trained rabble of magnificent size is no match for a highly trained fighting machine.
        • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -18/+2So the Iraqi insurgents are just better trained?
        • vr6vdub, on 01/22/2008, -2/+23Tankdog: Unfortunately our mission in Iraq isn't to destroy everything. If it was, we would have been out of there years ago. Don't mix guerilla warfare fighting against an occupying force with total war.
          • OwdenBowden, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Agreed. Personally we should have taken that old school WWII approach to Iraq (which would have also been a wake up call for the rest of the world) and LEVELED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY (everything and all obliterated), then rebuilt.

            I figure it we would have been out of there Militarily about 6 months to 1 year after the first MOAM (mother of all bombs)
      • Mactrekr, on 01/22/2008, -3/+9The draft is a terrible idea, forcing those who do not want to serve will only decrease our strength and cause dissension. What we need to do, is to pull our forces home from around the world, re-open our military bases here in the US, which will stimulate our economy, and stop being the "world police" Frankly, protectionism is looking very appealing at this point.
      • Crosshare, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4This entire article reads poorly. They understate the power of the US military in an all out conventional warfare. Even the articlecites this as Spuy says above. I recommend reading Red Storm Rising (even though it's a little out dated now) to get a real view on how a conventional WWIII would take place, only it involved the Soviets. Our military was still built for large scale warfare with the USSR. You're going to lose your forward command centers and Navy, this is just strategic fact. What this article doesn't take in to account is the power of our Nuclear subs, and long range Air Force capabilities. It is naive to not understand the power of cruise missles launched off of Nuke Subs. Not to mention what some of our "black" long range bombing capabilities are capable of. If you don't think aircraft like Aurora bombers exist, and wouldn't be capable of delivering payloads deep into enemy territory you're not doing your homework.
      • Chipper, on 01/22/2008, -2/+7"Every war simulation ever run" is a bit general. Could you cite one or two? Granted, China has manpower. But that's it. They are a regional power at best with only limited ability to project such beyond its borders. The U.S. grossly outspends them, are years ahead technologically, and have an highly trained and refined military. Contra to popular sentiment, though the may be the closest thing there is to a military competitor, they are not yet playing in NATO's league.
        • OwdenBowden, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Actually is is not a general statement. These simulations are conducted all the time. China wins because of the size of there reserves. The US is a powerhouse but unfortunately we do not have the heart to go the distance and in the end we lose. As for China having there asses handed to them as suggested by Elranzer's comment - you have to realize that when it was "handed to them" China did not have the stockpiles that they have today. Never underestimate nor use history as a guide for the outcome - otherwise you will be in for a rude awakening. As a Japanese General Said After Attacks at Pearl Harbour " I fear we have woken a sleeping Giant" The same will be true in regard to China if they are in conflict with us (or anyone)
        • mahdaeng, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1OwdenBowden is conceptually correct on this. Chinese strategies take in to account the long haul. The U.S. military wants to get in, perform some shock and awe, and then get back out as quickly as possible. Add to that the impatience of U.S. civilians and you can kiss the long haul goodbye. If nothing else was learned from Vietnam and Iraq, we should at least have learned that. The Chinese know how to bide their time. They have the resources to safely play the waiting game - to wear down the mountain over time.
        • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2It used to be that they only had manpower. Back in 1955. Now they have manpower, industrial power, economic power, and also technical ability.
          China reinvests in its infrastructure, so they grow. We move things out of the country to cut costs, so we shrink.
          To the Chinese everything is about national power, while to us it's pretty much just cash.
      • Elranzer, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3In every "simulation" eh? How about in every *real* war they got their asses handed to them by Britain or the Japanese. The USA is a military monster compared to those two.
        • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2You mean back in 1920 when they had no central government, and were fighting trained modern armies with sticks and kung fu?
          A lot has changed in the past 100 years. They pretty much handed us our asses in Korea.
      • mahdaeng, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1I'm with OwdenBowden on this one, for the most part. A draft wouldn't be necessary if we had a mandatory service policy. It could really be a win-win situation. Require that young men and women serve in some branch of the military for 1-2 years when they get out of high school, and pay their tuition for a bachelor's degree. If they serve beyond their mandatory period, they could receive additional tuition funds for graduate school. Sounds like a good plan to me.
      • EditorResponse, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1"In every war with China simulation ever run - Everyone loses against the Chinese." How do you know? Who do you work for? The Pentagon? What a ***** moron! The USA could turn them into a sheet of glass. NOW.
        • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3China has ICBM's too you know. The glassing would be mutual.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 01/22/2008, -2/+6Between this, and Russia's reservations of a pre-emptive nuclear strike... ahahaha. the world is going to *****.

      I bet Putin has plans somewhere to take over the Arctic too once we're weak enough. Goddammit.
      • hydroplane, on 01/22/2008, -0/+10The only thing preventing WW3 for the last 50 years has been M.A.D ( Mutually Assured Destruction). You are just now waking up to that fact.
        • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 01/22/2008, -9/+2So, why the ***** can't we dismantle these ***** things? Oh right, Bush doesn't believe in that!
          • slvrbullet87, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3or because we dont want to be a giant glowing hole in the ground. If everybody destroyed their nukes then it is workable, china isnt and russia isnt.
          • StGhurka, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3We HAVE been dismantling them. Very slowly so we don't greatly upset the balance of power.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_and_USSR_nuc ...

            Russia's latest posturing doesn't help, but hopefully won't disrupt the progress we've been making.
        • Solkre, on 01/22/2008, -0/+7Becuase if we dismantle 100% they will have dismantled 99%
      • willisan, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4The world has been "going to *****" throughout history.
        • DrMonkeyLove, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Damn strait. It's been going to ***** for the last 4000 years. Don't worry about it. Everything will be fine.
    • N3M3515, on 01/22/2008, -11/+13The war could be won without a bullet ever being fired. China has the US by wallet.
      • masamunecyrus, on 01/22/2008, -3/+21And conversely, the US has China by the wallet.
        • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -7/+6Actually no, China trades as much with the east as it does with the west.
          • BassMastr, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Well if someone loses half their business I think we could all agree that's a pretty significant hit. They better trade as much with the east as the west b/c they have 1.4 billion mouthes to feed. If someone loses half their business (we're talking billions upon billions of dollars here.) I would say you wouldn't be able to do "business as usual"
          • EditorResponse, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Look at what is happening to the global economy now due to the banking loan crisis in the USA. If China attacked the US by dumping bonds the world economy would collapse. China would be the ***** of the world...everyone would want to attack them. All of the markets and banks would fail. It would be a couple of weeks to a month before everyone decided to get together and total their economy by not trading with them.
      • BassMastr, on 01/22/2008, -4/+6In a business relationship who do you think gets hurt worse when a relationship soils, the guys who make the stuff or the guys who are paying to have the stuff made? While both parties are hurt inti tally, you can always find more people to make your stuff.
        • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3I think you mean "you can always find other customers."
          • BassMastr, on 01/23/2008, -2/+1No...what I mean is you can always find people to make your stuff. You can't "always find customers"
          • BassMastr, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1Ok, so if we were to quit having our stuff manufactured in china...would it be easier for us to find someone else to make our stuff (I.e. Mexico, taiwan, India...) Or would it be easier for them to find others who want to have their stuff made in China AND could afford it.
        • roodammy44, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1So you're saying the people who sit on their arse ordering people around, or the countries full of people making your stuff?
          As a person from the ex-british empire, I can tell you that your country becomes less powerful when it has less people making you stuff.
        • PhilLesh69, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1They have us by the wallet because of the amount of treasury debt they own, not because of how much they sell us.

          They can find new customers, but when they call in our debt, where do we turn to fund our war machine? Or even fund our domestic spending and entitlements?
    • xatx2, on 01/22/2008, -15/+8***** china
    • roodammy44, on 01/22/2008, -3/+5Plans like this are likely to start a nuclear war.
      With the destructive power of most of US's nuclear warheads at around 600 times more powerful than the ones used in nagasaki, and the fact that there are still thousands of active missiles, it would be insane to even consider a large scale war.
      It would end human civilization and perhaps even humanity itself due to the nuclear winter.
      • moofer, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4Thank you, Chicken Little.
        • roodammy44, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1It's not being chicken little to worry about a nuclear war.
          They even mention the US would be able to use nukes in the article. China has the h-bomb too.
          If you really believe humans aren't stupid enough to blow up the entire planet then you should research the start of the 1st world war.
          "Mutually Assured Destruction" had an equivalent in europe with two massive forces. The armies were so devastating that it would be a deterrent to any nation in war, as it would be too bad for both sides.
          Only it wasn't a deterrent, and the continent was devastated.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1But when people point out that the neocons commissioned plans to invade Iran, that is just "standard practice, they have plans to invade every nation, as a contingency."

        It is pretty unlikely that there will ever be a full scale exchange of nuclear missiles. China has a large number of nuclear missiles, too. Launching our's would cause them to launch their's. Going to war would most likely not include anything more than low-yield tactical nukes, 1 to 15 kiloton "dial-a-yield" nukes for penetrating bunkers and knocking out an overwhelming infantry or armor wave. Nothing more.
    • danarama, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3this would never happen because walmart wouldn't have anything to sell.
    • iainc, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Forget Taiwan. The US could neither win nor afford a conflict with China. The only way to beat China is to limit or reverse its economic growth, and that's not possible you you keep buying products that are "made in China", nor shipping jobs to the far east. And the average cost of living of American citizens cannot compete with that of the Chinese, so you lose again. Abstain from credit and copious consumption and you will (possibly) hurt China; pick a fight with her, and you lose EVERYTHING.

      America will be great again, but it will first need to learn humility and to re-invent itself. Right now, it's on the path to self-destruction.
  • jphicks, on 01/22/2008, -5/+30Well, tell me one more time why anyone would want to be President.
    • bobjohnsonmilw, on 01/22/2008, -2/+0Probably because one would have even less self esteem than a cop-wannabe?
    • Harbinger67, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Because in a perfect world, it's a position that would allow for unprecedented leadership, virtue, and selflessness to come forth from a particularly gifted individual and help guide and shape all of human society.

      Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. See bangor's comment for imperfect world scenario.
    • cgm1985, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1for the *****
    • PhilLesh69, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1You need to realize that the people who want to run for office do not think the same way you and I think. Normal people are grounded in a basic belief of right and wrong, of how to live in a community, have a job, produce something of value in order to feed and raise their children, have a wholesome family, etc.

      People that are drawn to positions of power are people whose basic instinctual drives are out of balance. Whether it's ego, greed, power, they are seeking it out of an imbalanced sense of entitlement.

      Normal people would not want to be president, knowing all the negatives and positives. But these are not normal people.
  • victorypup, on 01/22/2008, -2/+22I didn't see any mention of the troop transport submarines some say China is building. Nor the man in charge of their Armed Forces being a Navy Admiral, (a submarine Navy Admiral). Just what I heard on the grapevine.
    • PhilLesh69, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1How about the anti-satellite technology they've developed? Land and space based devices that can disable any satellite. They tested this stuff in 2006.
  • swordedge, on 01/22/2008, -10/+41I don't believe our air force can be knocked down as fast as the report says. Military stuff is hardened against nuclear EMP's.
    Oh, and like in Pearl Harbor, an attack on us without being hard to find terrorist like that would have the same result.
    • ilves7, on 01/22/2008, -3/+8a nuclear strike in the atmosphere would scramble communications more than anything, i don't think its meant to bring anything down, but if they can't communicate that's just as good.
      • bentman78, on 01/22/2008, -5/+1Like we wouldn't retaliate with the same? Give me a break.

        Ours and theirs would be down. I'd venture to guess we'd get our communications up a lot faster...
    • RedHairedMan, on 01/22/2008, -0/+19Yeah, China might want to re-think that whole 'American public will run away after we kill a few of their airmen.'
      Ask Japan how well that works. American public will run away from a war WE start, but we'll come after you like a rabid dog if you attack us first. I can only hope to god no one would actually let a nuke out of it's silo, because that would be the beginning of the end.
    • willskillz, on 01/22/2008, -0/+13It's true. I did SATcom for 5 yrs in the AF. I was stationed all over, including Osan AB in S. Korea. This was something we always feared there and had frequent exercises for these exact scenarios. Our military keeps it's important stuff literally buried underground in hardened facilities. Once comm is knocked out however, we really are sitting ducks. Sure they have backups and backups for backups, but most of those are old and outdated (trust me I know). Another thing that was barely mentioned but extremely important is a High-altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) type event. For example if one of these bombs detonated 200 miles above the center of the US, the scintillation could knock out all electronic eq from coast to coast. Without going into detail about Milstar, there's very few satellite systems that could survive that kind of environment much longer then a few minutes, leaving us completely dumb, deaf and blind w/ just enough time to launch a counter-attack. It's all hypothetical and I doubt it could really happen, but you never know. It would take extensive research and a whole lot of espionage to pull off a simultaneous attack on all of our major comm hubs around the world to have any real effect. I think China would try to cripple us economically first before trying any kind of military strike. Either way we have to keep them our friends and vice versa cause I don't think either country would want to risk the consequences from the other.
      • moofer, on 01/22/2008, -4/+1Thanks for letting them know.
        • iainc, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Um, let's see. The Chinese gave us Sun-Tzu, while the septics gave us Don Rumsfeld. Willskillz didn't tell the Chinese ***** they don't know already, believe me. Be more afraid that you currently have the world's most dangerous retard at your helm, and that he can lose it anytime before November '08.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Uhh.. will. I don't think you've taken into account our new High energy laser weapons capable of shooting down not only artillery shells, but missiles and aircraft. The U.S is virtually invincible. I give China until 2050 to even BEGIN to get on the same playing field.
    • kaelyiesta, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5Another problem I noticed in the report is this line: "a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war."

      They forget that the moment we are attacked, we unite fully behind even the most war crazy government. This is true of any nation really. Assaulting a country only makes it harder for peacemakers to be heard amongst the fearful cries for revenge.
      • blindhammer, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1The scenerio described involves a clash over Taiwan, which is not part of the United States. Most people in the US don't even know where Taiwan is located, let alone want to sacrifice lives over it.

        I think people understand that. Even today, people don't hate China even though it assisted North Korea during the Korean War. There were no calls to invade China during Korea that I know of.

        The point is, yes, if China were to outright attack the United States, people would respond. But, if China and the US were to come to conflict over Taiwan, the response would be different.
        • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1MacArthur called for an invasion of China. He was a nut.
        • nimbleprune, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1MacArthur requested nuclear strikes against China and more troops to invade. He figured since we where fighting the Chinese anyways we might as well make it official. He was fired for doing so. Yes he was a Nut
      • nimbleprune, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1they would hit US installations all over as well as hit Taiwan at the same time. mainly to make it harder for us to respond. China assumes we will support Taiwan so they take that into account right away.
    • PhilLesh69, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1EMP will knock out ground-based equipment. Sure, there are shielded devices, but not everything is shielded. I think M1 tanks are shielded, but I could be wrong.

      However, another threat is even more overlooked. China has tested anti-satellite technology in 2006. Ground and space based devices that can disable any satellite. So they could, in theory, disable not only our communications, but our guidance systems.
      • nimbleprune, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1most of the world has specifically avoiding putting weapons into space but this whole situation could change that.
        • PhilLesh69, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1China has tested this stuff. I think we have, too.

          But as dependent on our GPS for bomb guidance, navigation, blue force tracking, etc, we cannot afford to lose even a third of our Geo positioning satellites.
  • acrodev, on 01/22/2008, -41/+4I for one welcome...
    • BassMastr, on 01/22/2008, -5/+10That's too bad... Why wait? You should renounce your citizenship and move. (I think most of us would be happy you did.)
  • diggerman, on 01/22/2008, -23/+53Why is the US involved with protecting Taiwan? We should mind our own business
    • Terr01, on 01/22/2008, -2/+44It's a very weird situation. (Cliff notes version, corrections welcome.)

      So during WWII the Japanese had invaded China, at which point you had the Nationalists and the Communists as domestic Chinese forces already in a sort of protracted civil war. In the end when Japan was defeated (Nagasaki, Hiroshima), the Communists had the upper hand due to how the war had played out.

      The Communists drove the Nationalists to Taiwan, where the Nationalists said "This is the temporary capital. We're still the legitimate government of China. Just you wait!"

      Later, during the Cold War, Taiwan became special because we had to defend it (and everywhere else) from Communists.

      Now, I expect, it's because we'd be defending Democracy.

      Meanwhile, Taiwan and China have this continual dance about how far Taiwanese politicians can go to making the domestic audience happy with independent noises while China is concerned with maintaining the fiction that Taiwan is just a "breakaway province".
      • chicofaraby, on 01/22/2008, -4/+19I agree with diggerman. The US doesn't need to be involved. I know the history. I just don't care. Chiang Kai-shek was equally as murderous a cutthroat as Mao. Only difference is Mao beat him in final number of dead bodies generated.

        The Cold War reasoning was ***** then, it's is twice ***** now.
      • masamunecyrus, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3And there's also the point that nowadays, if Taiwan were to be destroyed, a great amount of the world's capacity to produce computers would be destroyed with it.

        But yes, the defending democracy party is important, as is the point that we're bound by law to defend them.
        • altgeeky1, on 01/22/2008, -5/+5Hogwash.
          We're ALSO bound by law to continue to reduce our nuclear stockpiles, and follow UN resolutions (except when deemed inconvenient)
          Also, the grandparent poster is confusing "democracy" with "capitalism". The US did not enter into a Taiwan defense treaty because Taiwan was a "democracy"... impossible to be true because Taiwan was NOT a democracy until the late 1980's.
          Also, the history of Taiwan is it was unruled/aboriginal until the Dutch colonized it, then were attacked by a Ming emperor.. and then a later Chinese emperor in the late 1800's renounced it's claim, which led to Japan claiming the island for the next 80 years.

          I think it's up to the Taiwanese to decide who they belong to, but I hardly think the US is in any position to do anything about it after years of technology and manufacturing transfers to mainland China. The US military has been exposed as conventionally weak. To this day our submarine fleet is still focused on containing the Soviets, or launching nuclear strikes.

          There are hawks in the US who salivate for a China war not because they believe it is winnable, but because losing a great war is the pretext they need to re-engineer American society. The scary thing is in China there are hawks who want to flex the economic and military muscle that GE and other US corporations have worked so hard to give them.

          (Speaking of which, I just bought a PS3.. and was surprised that it was 100% made in China. The processors in a PS3 are pretty cutting edge stuff. Scary.)
          • Terr01, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1"Also, the grandparent poster is confusing "democracy" with "capitalism". The US did not enter into a Taiwan defense treaty because Taiwan was a "democracy"... impossible to be true because Taiwan was NOT a democracy until the late 1980's."

            No, I didn't confuse them, you simply didn't read what I wrote.

            Cold War Rationale: Oppose Communism
            Post-Cold War Rationale: Support Democracy

            Taiwan became a real Democracy in roughly the same years that the Cold War was petering out.
        • freedomkeeper, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Speaking of your PS3, I bought an Apple G4 in 2000+/-. It stated in the manual that exportation to certain states, including China, was forbidden. (As to not provide them with advanced technology.) In 2006, I bought an Apple G5. It was made in China. Tells you far we've fallen.
    • doctorfungi, on 01/22/2008, -5/+11Taiwan is the seconds largest importer of US arms. It's all about money.
    • gtluke, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2we also buy a ***** ton of stuff from them, its also about money... but more of our citizen's money and cheap walmart goods.
    • orangetiki, on 01/22/2008, -3/+6You think we're minding our own in the Middle east? Our track record isn't the best
    • yellowsnowcone, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6There is also something called the Taiwan Relations Act ... while it doesn't call for the outright defense of Taiwan (to do so would lead Taiwan to provoke the mainland; it's better to be ambiguous), the Act does call for the US to help arm Taiwan against mainland agression

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act
    • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -3/+1Business is the reason.
    • banido, on 01/22/2008, -4/+6Because America CARES !

      /sarcasm
    • masamunecyrus, on 01/22/2008, -0/+10The complexity of the issue is such that it wouldn't be practical to post it in a digg comment. Perhaps in a huge editorial, but I've been reading up about it over the past few weeks, actually. It's a range of issues starting from WWII and Japan to ranging from Democracy to only supporting the PRC (China) in order to defend against the Soviets, but secretly supporting the ROC (Taiwan). I might also mention the issue of the PRC essentially stealing the UN seat from Taiwan (ever wonder who got the bright idea of giving China veto power? Originally, Taiwan had it, when they were in charge of China), and then to protect the Democracy and as sort of a nod of friendship to Taiwan, after being backstabbed several dozen times, we bound ourselves by law to defend Taiwan from attack from China, as well as never officially acknowledge that Taiwan is a part of China.

      If you want to actually learn about the issue in-depth, it's pretty ridiculous how complicated it is, but if you like history, it's a fascinating read. Really, you could start reading any of these articles on Wikipedia, it's amazing how much everything interconnects.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republ ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Repub ...
      http://zen.sandiego.edu/Jerome/1128611831/index_ht ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan
      And you can start branching off from there.
      • amenhotep, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2"we bound ourselves by law to defend Taiwan from attack from China, as well as never officially acknowledge that Taiwan is a part of China."
        wrong, and wrong
        Taiwan relations act doesn't have "US is to defend Taiwan", and US acknowledged that taiwan is a part of PRC since 1979.
        • masamunecyrus, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Slightly wrong. The US and Japan are the two big countries that "acknowledge" that China states that there is "One China". Other countries in the world "accept" this. Us and Japan, however, do not. That slight change in wording is a world of difference.

          Also, the United States' sixth assurance in our "Six Assurances" to Taiwan in the 80's is that "The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan."

          Also, in regards to defense, while we're not REQUIRED to defend the island, we almost assuredly will.

          In the Taiwan Relations Act the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States"

          The TRA also mandates "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."
    • sodoh, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2At one time Taiwan was the only major supplier of the glue used in Chips. May not still be the case. But if that was to stop pretty much every electronic device would stop being made.
      • sleepycoder, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0If Taiwan and China got into a protracted war with the US not involved, both their resources would be tied up destroying each other. While initially this would cause prices on electronics to soar, the manufacturing jobs would start to come back to the US, or perhaps South America, and this could possibly reverse the flow of debt between China and the US. Imagine the profits on the arms sales the US could make arming both Taiwan and China. After all, the US is the world's largest arms dealer.
    • iainc, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2You'd think lessons would have been learned, wouldn't you? :)
    • anaesthetica, on 01/23/2008, -1/+3Sadly, no one is trained in geography, much less geopolitics, anymore. If they were, the answer might be obvious.

      First, if you read Chinese newspapers and journals, they occasionally refer to Taiwan as a permanent U.S. aircraft carrier sitting off their coast. That's not an insignificant position for the reigning hegemon to have vis-a-vis the potential challenging hegemon.

      Second, all global hegemons (Spain, Holland, Britain, USA) have been naval powers, and dominance of the sea has been priority #1. Why do you think the U.S. still maintains 12 aircraft carrier battle groups even though the only other blue water navies are our allies (UK & France)? In the graphic in the article you can see plainly the first island chain off of China's coast, running from the Kurile islands, through Japan, the the Ryukyu Islands, to Taiwan, to the Philippines and the South China Sea. Just as the Antilles encircle the Caribbean, so too does this island chain encircle China. Taiwan is a keystone in this chain, and important for keeping China's navy for the most part bottled up and trackable.

      Third, the Taiwan strait (between Taiwan and China) is a major trade artery. It supplies a substantial amount of the imports for U.S. allies South Korea and Japan. More importanly, almost all of their imported energy (oil and gas from the Persian Gulf) comes through those straits. The security of Taiwan == the security of those trade routes == the security of major U.S. allies.

      Finally, there's the whole democratic counter-example that Taiwan serves as. The fact that ethnically, religiously, linguistically, culturally identical people in Taiwan have an open, prosperous, liberal democratic, capitalist system of government is a tremendous propaganda score against the Communist government of the mainland. Arguments that liberal democracy is not something that Chinese people can or should adopt, based on dubious readings of their history or culture or philosophy/religion, or even more dubious arguments based on race, are trivially refuted by the ongoing success of Taiwan's rough-and-tumble yet vibrant democratic example. If the world is serious about human rights in China and about a regime that represents the people of the most populous nation on earth, Taiwan will be an important piece in that process.
    • tvman64, on 01/26/2008, -0/+0Does Taiwan have any oil? We care about freedom and democracy if there's oil involved. Seriously, does anyone remember when China was attempting to launch satellites in the 1990s and their rockets kept exploding on the launch pads? They got smart and stole the necessary technology from the United States and suddenly they were a player in the space race. Let them have Taiwan if they want it that bad. We have other worries, like the defective foreign-made parts that are going into our military fighter jets. Does China have anything to do with that?
  • ordig, on 01/22/2008, -7/+19Well, that's a dumb plan. The sucker punch strategy didn't work out so well for japan...
    • mattyd12466, on 01/22/2008, -5/+6to be fair that was a totaly different time, and china now could do alot more damage than simply attacking a single harbor
      • BassMastr, on 01/22/2008, -2/+7And so could we...
      • Hartley1942, on 01/22/2008, -0/+9People often forget that Pearl Harbor was just one of the many attacks that took place that day/week. The Phillipines, Wake island, etc, were all attacked within a very short period of time.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5Remember Bataan......Never Forget.
    • freedomkeeper, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0We beat Japan through a war of attrition. We couldn't do that with 1.3 billion plus China.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Especially when we don't have any mentionable industrial base from which to support a war of attrition.
    • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -0/+3Japan would have won if it had the resources and manufacturing to replace its losses. At the beginning of the war they had better hardware, better strategy, and the element of surprise.
      Today who has the manufacturing capacity? Not the US, not anymore. China has it. It's tough to fight a modern war when we don't even make our own steel.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1I agree. Japan was buying used railroad track from the US to build their battleships and carriers. Once they attacked us, they lost a good portion of their steel supply. Yet they held out for 4 years.

        I wonder how long we could hold out, especially since Chinese factories are building some of our Hummvees and lots of our components and electronics. Maybe we could ramp up our industrial base over time, but could we last long enough?
  • cyberdork, on 01/22/2008, -6/+48An open conflict with the US will never happen.
    China is most likely waiting until it's own consumer market becomes more important to their economy than their exports to the US. In that case China could threaten to liquidate it's trillion dollar in US debt without causing much harm to it's own economy. At that point the US doesn't have much choice other than leaning back and watch China take over Taiwan.
    Also, what would be the benefit for the US to defend Taiwan? They would take the biggest losses since WW2 just to defend a strategically unimportant ally. Don't forget fighting China is not like fighting Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Serbia or Iraq.
    • Wartz, on 01/22/2008, -10/+9if you take a look at china's airforce, its pretty much a POS. Since control of the air = win the war easily these days, I dont see how we would take huge losses.
      • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -7/+5Someone really needs to remove that myth from the public conciousness. Did air power win in Somalia? Afghanistan (both times)? Iraq? It's an important component but WWII didn't end until men were on the ground in Berlin, not when bombers flew over it.
        • noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -4/+7It's been pointed out to you before, I suggest you pay attention. Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq are not conventional wars. Both Afghanistan and Iraq have been thought as liberations. The enemy are not the majority and we cannot use strategies that would hurt the majority. If China declared war on the United State we would not be fighting for the survival of the Chinese, we would be fighting for our survival. China would be bombed into the dirt before they realised aircraft were overhead.

          WWII ended directly because of airpower. Without the air campaign our soldiers would have never made it to Berlin.
      • altgeeky1, on 01/22/2008, -5/+5The US airforce is entirely long-range, which means it can only attack KNOWN targets.
        Try sinking 10,000 "troop submarines" with F-16's from Okinawa, North Japan or South Korea...
        Using nukes is ill advised, especially in narrow channel waterways.
        PS - Most of the US fleet is within a short range strike from land. Never mind rubber boats from Iran... more likely divers from Saudi Arabia or Yemen could swim a nuke up underneath. In the US revolutionary war, people swam up to British warships with dynamite packs. It's hardly new thinking.
        • noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3We have the capability to find and track submarines. What do you think it was that heard the Kursk disaster? We also don't use aircraft to attack submarines. We have stealth submarines specifically designed to take on such a threat.
          • Wartyboskfapped, on 01/22/2008, -3/+6That's why the 5th Fleet knew well in advance about the Chinese sub that popped up right next to their flotilla in the Gulf.. oh, wait, they didn't! It took them completely by surprise! And you don't know what you're talking about, again.
          • noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2You mean the one that popped up during an exercise when the crew was focused elsewhere?
          • noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3That sub was also 5 miles away by the way, that is hardly right next to their flotilla.
            http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/17/asia/AS_ ...
        • 30thElement, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2The US had dynamite in the Revolutionary war? No wonder we won, we had a time machine!
      • amenhotep, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6Maybe you forget that china is a nuclear power and has the ability to deliver to US soil?
      • iainc, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5Even a POS airforce is more than a match for a nice fat airborne tanker, or a B-1, or a B-52 for that matter. Without fuel your short-range jets are useless and your long-range bombers are, well, *****. So you're limited to first strike nuclear retaliation. Destruction is mutually assured.

        The Chinese need only destroy your infrastructure, while what's left of American society will rip itself to pieces.
    • masamunecyrus, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4There's a LOT of money to be had in Taiwan. Most specifically in the area of computers.

      Ad then there's the fact that if we're truly as concerned about saving democratic nations from tyranny as we say we are (part of the reason we're in the Middle East.... after overthrowing many of the Democratically elected officials over there and installing dictators many decades ago), Taiwan's a great example of one that could use some help.
      • warnergt, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Name the "many" democratically elected officials that the U.S. overthrew.
      • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Mossadegh [Iran], Arbenz [Guatemala], and Allende [Chile]
        That's just off the top of my head.
    • warnergt, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2All allies are important against totalitarian dictatorships.
    • djAnakin, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2That's pretyt much what I would guess they would do.. overnight, pull all their money from the US.

      Though, i'm sure i'm not the first one to have thought of that.
    • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Thing is, the Taiwanese themselves are very heavily invested in China. More than they are in the US. Sure Taiwan would prefer to be independent, but If it came down to it they know who butters their bread and who their fellow countrymen are.
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Speaking of who butters their bread, many very wealthy and influential people and corporations in the US are just as heavily invested in China.

        Google, IBM, Dell, just to name a few. I'm sure almost every major corporation in America has a substantial investment in China. Not just money, but offices, production facilities, employees, etc.

        Wouldn't that be interesting? When national security conflicts with large and powerful money interests?
  • lacolonel, on 01/22/2008, -14/+6We have no business being involved in this. This is like China backing Hawaii in an attempt at secession. I'm sure we would not be happy with that.
    “The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you'll go.
    • warnergt, on 01/22/2008, -3/+2It is not secession. Taiwan NEVER belonged to communist China.
      Besides, what gives the dictatorship that runs China any legitimacy? They weren't elected. They don't recognize basic human rights. They enslave the population. The government of China has no valid claim to mainland China, let alone Taiwan.

      • PhilLesh69, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Then what gives Saudi Arabia's government any legitimacy? Because they still sell us oil, even after kicking our military out?

        Taiwan was part of china when the chinese communists took over. They won the civil war.

        Being a democracy is not the sole measure of legitimacy. We deal, diplomatically and economically, with all sorts of nations. We have never limited ourselves to only dealing with democratic nations. Often, when it doesn't work out in our favor, we will even declare a democratically elected government to be illegitimate, corrupt or communist or socialist.

    • lacolonel, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2I still don't think we have any business in Chinese affairs. We are not the UN ( in theory at least). Taiwan and China have a very intricate relationship. My analogy to a hypothetical Hawaiian secession was just to illustrate a point... an island for an island... And as far as I know, reading and stupidity do not have a negative causal relationship. But maybe you should check with Steven Levitt .
      The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you'll go
      • PhilLesh69, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1We shouldn't be involved in anyone's affairs. The main reason we ever had a relationship with Saudi Arabia that allowed us a secure source of oil throughout the cold war was because we were different from the imperial gun-boat diplomacy of France and England. We went there only expecting open commerce, without any military muscle to force it.

        Learning the right thing is good. However, if you aren't careful, you can fall down a hole of ideological narrow-mindedness and demonized enemies and evils.
  • rpi22, on 01/22/2008, -5/+74Step one -- Sell 1% of their 1.5 trillion U$D reserves.

    Step two -- there's no step two...
    • jhshukla, on 01/22/2008, -3/+1Step one -- Sell 1% of their 1.5 trillion U$D reserves.

      Step two -- ???

      Step three -- profit. literally.
    • chili555, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5How does this work? China buys bonds at auction from US government. China decides to wreck its biggest customer and sells said bond. To who? The US government? They are not obligated to take the bond back until maturity; sorry, no sale. So they sell it to who? A German investor? A Japanese investor? Me? You? So how does this impact the US exactly? They sold a bond that they were obligated to redeem at maturity. It may get sold and resold a dozen times. At maturity, someone shows up and wants his principle. Why does the US government suffer whether it's China or some private investor?
      • sleepycoder, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2If they sell bonds at a low price, the US will not be able to sell new bonds unless they offer them at a very high interest rate. So China flooding the market with US bonds would make it either very costly or impossible for the US to borrow money.
        • zeusthemoose, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Simple fix to this: raise top bracket income tax rates. If you cannot borrow any more money, you can simply raise taxes. If China did do this to us, the public would see this as a threat and have no problem swallowing higher taxes in the name of national security.
      • rpi22, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1No. How do you think we buy all this ***** from china? Cold hard cash, not bonds. They have soooo much paper coming in that they've had no choice but to hold onto it. They have enormous CURRENCY RESERVES, not just bonds and t-bills.
    • jbmcb, on 01/22/2008, -5/+14Translation:

      Step 1 - Screw over the US Economy
      Step 2 - You've just killed the largest customer for your goods and largest trading partner
      Step 3 - Retaliatory US Tariffs - your exports grind to a halt
      Step 4 - You're economy tanks, along with the rest of the world's

      Congratulations! You win because everybody including you looses.
      • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1You say that as if you think that they would care... Lots of china lives in somewhat poverty already and has for many many generation. You think that they would not handle it better than us? foolish...
    • vr6vdub, on 01/22/2008, -2/+6Until China can start selling to itself, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Dumping their American dollars would cause it to plummett and make their exported goods to expensive for us to buy. It's much more complicated than your simple steps.

      Think of it this way...if a bank loans Joe Schmoe $10,000, Joe is the one to worry. If the bank loans him 10 billion then the bank is the one to worry.
      • CedEx, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2China can already sell to itself. It did so before in the Asian market crisis back in the 90s, and with the burgeoning middle class and the flood of inexpensive goods (including Chinese built cars), internal trade will hold them over until they can do external trade again. By no means it is a growth oriented strategy, but it is enough to keep the gears turning.
    • waitasec, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Bush solved this "nuclear option" already. The $1.5 trillion dollars that China owns has lost over half it's value in the last year. But I do agree that a slow, steady erosion is much safer for China. The plan they outlined in the story, blinding our satellites and setting off a nuke in the Pacific is the surest way to start a nuclear war that they would not win. 60 nukes vs 1000 nukes doesn't win even if we have a lower population and our ABMs aren't ready yet. In any case you are all looking in the wrong direction. Taiwan is nothing more than mis-direction. With global warming, whatever the cause, the "Northern Expansion" is much more viable for China.
      • webkidd, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2" 60 nukes vs 1000 nukes"
        How many nukes do you think it takes.
        Its like saying You only have a million bullets I have a Billion bullets, HA!
        If we both fire our one bullet at the same time we both die.
        By the way, In a nuclear war NO ONE WINS........
  • wonderchemist, on 01/22/2008, -8/+68They are missing the China's Ultimate Weapon. If all 1.3 billion chinese jump at the same time, they will cause an earthquake. The chinese government knows how to focus this energy to destroy any city on earth!
    • Marijuana, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3lmao
    • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1You could never get two Chinese people to agree on pizza toppings, much less get them all to jump at the same time.
  • vroom101, on 01/22/2008, -5/+10Photos: USAF B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and USAF F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets over and in-the-vicinity-of very strategic Andersen Air Force Base in Territory of Guam, USA:

    1. http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2005112 ...
    via http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20051129.htm

    2. http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2005082 ... (over the Pacific Ocean)
    via http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20050822.htm
    • metamorfoza, on 01/22/2008, -11/+4I have no idea why did you post those links.
      USAF B-2, is soo 1990s and it got shot down in Yugoslavia by simple AA gun (B-2 first time usage in armed conflict). Considering that Yugoslav army was outaded (AA technoglogy from early 80s) and considering that B-2 missions in Afganistan and Iraq were against almost non-existant air-defence, its usage against modern army (China or Russia) is highly questionable.
      Not to mention that [from wiki] "a design engineer that worked on the B-2's propulsion system, was arrested in October 2005 for selling classified information related to the B-2 to foreign countries".
      • dboy3587, on 01/22/2008, -2/+10no the B-2 Bomber has never gotten shot down... nor is it obsolete. it was a F-117 nighthawk which is so 1980s, and they knew it took the same path everyday so they launched everything they had at it even though they couldn't see it on radar.
      • noahhoward, on 01/22/2008, -3/+9We haven't lost a B-2 yet. Get your facts straight. An F-117 was shot down over Yugoslavia and yes they are outdated. The B-2 is more advanced than any other bomber out there.
  • caponumen, on 01/22/2008, -7/+11LOL, all they have to do is cut off exports and wait 90 days.
    Greed is one thing but our current situation was created by total morons......
    • DeFex, on 01/22/2008, -1/+13yeah it would be a terrible shame if we had to buy good quality stuff from somewhere else or, god forbid. make it ourselves. instead of buying instant landfill from china.
      • airiox, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4Precisely. But unfortunately in the past 25 years America's manufacturing economy can't produce enough goods for we the American people.

        I dugg cap because of his last statement where this situation was created by greedy morons that managed to ruin our manufacturing society and turned our economy into the pitiful shambles it is today.

        If China cuts off exports it would not doom us, it would only serve to hurt the chinese and strengthen america, hopefully. But we are FUBARed because of Clinton turning over our sovreignty to China.
        • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1WHAT? Can't produce enough? --*****! Corporate greed and gov't. ***** up trade agreements is why WE don't produce enough!
    • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Almost all manufacturing has been dimantled and moved to China. So you would first have to establish a manufacter manufacturing industry.
    • BassMastr, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5If they cut of exports for 90 days their economy would collapse way before ours did. You guys make it sound like China is/was doing awesome prior to America's desire for cheap labor. Not sure if anyone has noticed, but China isn't the only place with people willing to work for cheap. Which is harder to find...capital or labor?
  • VeryBoredNow, on 01/22/2008, -10/+15They would summon Godzilla
    • fr3nch13, on 01/22/2008, -2/+9Well the US would just summon the Cloverfield monster!
    • Aerandir, on 01/22/2008, -1/+11I don't think so, since Godzilla is Japanese, not Chinese.
      (I can't believe I actually replied to this...)
      • rabidrabit, on 01/22/2008, -2/+4Not anymore, he went free agent 2 years ago.
        • slvrbullet87, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2We should put a bid in on him, with him and king kong we would have the best offensive line ever
    • BassMastr, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3And he wouldn't know what the hell they wanted b/c Godzilla is Japanese. (I know...all those monsters look alike.)
    • blenderzen, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1"The Chinese believe, that if you find a discarded panda tooth, you have the power to summons Godzilla. I'm drunk on panda Mystery!"
    • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1China would summon zombie Sun Tzu and Sun Wukong the monkey king.
  • Grova, on 01/22/2008, -3/+39Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces. (“The U.S. experience in Somalia is usually cited in support of this assertion,” according to the Rand report.) Wrong! The American public hates ***** wars with no "end game".Wars that don't have clear objectives that carelessly waste lives and money. But if you truely want to unite Americans and really piss them off pull some ***** like that and see what happens. As Admiral Yamamoto said after attacking Pearl. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
    • rizzo2008, on 01/22/2008, -3/+11If we were deliberately attacked by an aggressor nation I believe the American public would unite behind it. Iraq, Vietnam, and every other war since WW2 has not been legitimate intervention.
      • Crosshare, on 01/22/2008, -2/+6You're forgetting the first Iraq war, most of the country supported it.
        • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Most Americans are brainwashed thinking we are the world's police as well... One country invading another country and we need to protect them is an easy sell to the brainwashed American public. Don't think for one minute that this is why the gov't engaged....it was totally about OIL.
      • slvrbullet87, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4Korea?
        • zeusthemoose, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3Korea was an internal affair. Much like Vietnam. There was no aggressor nation other than half of the nation itself.
    • ivandir, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6I think you are right. I am not much for wars, but when someone endangers my family's well being then all bets are off, that goes for Foreign and Domestic enemies.

      In the case of China they just like to flex their muscles once in a while.
      • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Who endangered your family exactly? Besides our foreign policy? (Domestic enemy)
    • Crosshare, on 01/22/2008, -2/+15Thank you, thank you, thank you. Just because half the country doesn't support unsubstantiated wars, doesn't mean we're a bunch of pussies. A flat out attack on the U.S. can stir up Patriotism faster than anything. A good number of the fresh soldiers fighting in the Iraq war signed up based off of what happened on Sept. 11th. Unfortunately they were sent to the wrong country.
      • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1Ironically, they didn't need to be sent anywhere at all, or even enlist...they were already in the right country to start. /cackle
    • timla, on 01/22/2008, -2/+7Most of the rest of the world really does not understand the american way of thinking. Just because we do not like trumped up wars against nations that were no threat to us. Just because we do not like seeing our sons and daughters run through a meet grinder for no reason, does not mean that we will not open up a can of whoppass on the first ***** who decided to throw an honest punch.

      Look at Afganistan, our idot president has taken his eye off the ball there, but most americans supported the invasion of afganistan at the time and still support the efforts in that country.
    • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -1/+2America is the wide awake piss-drunk giant. The term "sleeping giant" was originally coined by Napoleon in reference to China.
      • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1change out "piss-drunk" for "getting wet" which is PCP / Angel Dust and you might be more accurate...
  • doctorfungi, on 01/22/2008, -12/+43You'd be kidding yourself if you think the United States hasn't had VERY advanced plans to attack China from the 50's onwards.

    The fact remains, the United States is at least 20-30 years ahead of China in technology, and is still by far the most advanced military in the world. China may have a "plan" to attack the United States, but it's never going to happen because:

    a) China's nuclear stockpile is nothing compared to that owned by the United States. Even then, they don't even have a proper delivery method. Mutual assured destruction doesn't even come into play, because China would simply be unable to destroy the United States with nukes (too few, missile range too short).
    b) Economies. Even if the United States economy is in bad shape, the Chinese would be doomed without it. The same applies for the United States in terms of exports/imports.
    c) The United States military would mop the floor with China (assuming the United States wasn't running an invade and occupy mission).
    d) Your country is armed to the teeth with weaponry.
    • orangetiki, on 01/22/2008, -12/+16And yet we can't find a group of people hanging out in the desert.
      • doctorfungi, on 01/22/2008, -3/+20You're talking about different styles of combat. The United States has been training for a large scale conventional war since the 50's. The whole cold war geared the United States up for a major nation vs. nation conflict. This is exactly what the armed forces are structured for.
        Guerrilla style tactics are something that the United States is only just adapting to.
        • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -8/+1No he's not. Combat is always the same. It always ends up with men on the ground, fighting in the jungles and door to door.
        • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1STFU, we stole guerrilla style tactics way back in the colony period from the beautiful Native Americans and true owners of North America that we slaughtered. That's how America was created and we won the revolutionary war against the british. Idiots. Don't make excuses for failures. No one in their right mind lines their troops up so they can shoot at each other anymore.
      • rizzo2008, on 01/22/2008, -1/+11Guerilla warfare vs. conventional warfare. Two completely different things. The conventional war in Iraq was over in a few weeks but the insurgency has persisted for er...4 years almost?
        • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -5/+3The conventional ATTACK was over within weeks. No war is even close to ended. Once the US actually has to go in and do the hard work that video games and laser beams can't, that where they are set up to LOSE. There is only one wat to win the final ground battle. NUMBERS
          • cmackattack, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1insurgent, homeland, freedom or whatever fighters always have the advantage over an invading force...numbers or not. Ask the British.
        • CrazyZ, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3No. Once the US has to go in and have their hands tied by politics so they can do nothing effective to quell the "insurgency", that is where they are SET UP to lose.

          fixed it for ya.
    • Brian48216, on 01/22/2008, -9/+11China absolutely has the capability to lob an ICBM to US shores. If they can put a man in space, they can put a nuke in our backyard.
      • doctorfungi, on 01/22/2008, -7/+10They have 20x DF-5 missiles that are only capable of hitting one coast of the United States. The AEGIS anti-ICBM sites near Japan and the land based anti-ICBM sites in Hawaii and Alaska would take care of 20 incoming missiles no problem.
        Other than these DF-5's, they don't have any missiles capable of reaching the United States. It would be very hard for China to put a nuke onto US soil.
        • jaxcs, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Even if you are right, will this stay that way?
        • Brian48216, on 01/22/2008, -3/+61. I'm sure you're just an expert on the Chinese military.
          If the US has a ***** ton of classified information, what makes you think that China doesn't classify their armaments?
          2. ABM technology is sketch at best. Intercepting 20 missiles no problem? We've had issues hitting ONE missile. There's a reason the Union of Concerned Scientists think missile defense development is a bad idea.
        • pyronik, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2its more likely that it will move more in that direction and be less likely... remember... we have been working on ship based missle defense systems against icbm's for awhile that are at least now partially effective. This trend will only lead to less of a chance of a nation like china being able to strike us
        • amenhotep, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3your info is kinda 1980
      • Rich711, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3And last time I checked China still doesnt believe in God or Allah or paradise so what exactly is their incentive for inciting us into wiping China off the map and destroying the entire planet with nuclear radiation? Really, I cant wait to hear. I bet it'll have something to do with Wal-Mart and Zionism.
        • DogBotherer, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Aside from the jingoism, you're broadly correct... China has no interest in going head to head with the States (except in a business sense).
        • warnergt, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3The unelected leaders of China have no regard for human life. They have no problem whatsoever sending hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens to their deaths. They have already killed tens of millions of their own during peacetime.
          • Rich711, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Send them where to catch the nuclear missiles we launch in response? I've if your statement is true and they would send millions to their death... to gain what? I get it. You hate the Chinese and think they are evil but what exactly is their motivation in starting a full blown nuclear war? What do they gain? 64 virgins? That is my point. Try reading before ranting next time.
      • Brian48216, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3btw, I totally agree that this is just a thought exercise-
        the military has plans for going to war with canada...just in case.

        But I would disagree with the fact that the US could "mop the floor" with China. And armed conflict with China would ultimately end with the US victorious, but the US would be crippled, and to think that American casualties would be kept to a minimum is naive.
    • zeromous, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5I tend to agree but Im not convinced the US would mop up China. This is not to say that the US doesn't have advanced fiscal/military plans worthy of a good fight.

      Im no e-con expert but if I borrow money (say 100$ from you) and the while I'm in debt, the value of my money goes down, the value of your debt doesn't go up. I still promised to pay you 100$+ interest it will just devalue your debt. I owe you 100$ at whatever it is worth that day thats the risk of lending. I wonder if the US borrowed money from China to purposely devalue their holdings later as a strategy. With no one left to buy their goods, and left holding 1 trillion in worthless holdings and falling more as they sell it off- suddenly China has their own problems. Meanwhile the US has used Chinas money to basically finance the act of buying all the goods they produce, surrounding them with middle eastern bases. Sound plausible?

      It makes me wonder which house of cards scales taller: Chinas or the US. I guess we'll find out in the next couple of decades :)

      I noticed long ago how Saudi, Uzbekistan Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran lands are critical to Oil supplies and military bases to essentially surround china? They are also optimal from a defensive perspective, far more optimal than the so called "Dragon's Den". ANy protracted mission would benefit from two fronts, naval war in the east and mountain terrain, fighting plains, in the west. Honestly go look at a map if you think the US isn't hedging its bets for/against China.
    • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -7/+4My friend you are either seriously delusional or are drinking the patriotic kool-aid.
    • enderwigin, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2on your comment on nukes its a mute issue using nukes is global suicide and no one will dare to use them
    • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -1/+1I saw those plans! Let me paraphrase them for you:
      1- pull down a statue of Mao.
      2- be greeted as liberators.
  • DeFex, on 01/22/2008, -4/+4but where will they send all their worthless crap consumer goods then?
  • facereplacer, on 01/22/2008, -7/+12couldn't China just foreclose on our country? Maybe even repossess our military industrial complex?
    • pyronik, on 01/22/2008, -1/+11and how would you say they would do that, send a little accountant to the base to enforce it?
    • Rich711, on 01/22/2008, -1/+5The US debt bonds are a large part of what they back their own currency in. Plus, they can only be returned to the US treasury with US Senate approval for business with US companies and property. Then the US treasury decides if they will accept them at the given time.

      The Senate blocked China from using some of it to by a US tech company last year because Nancy Pelosi thought it was a bad idea to let the scary Chinese people have all that fancy technology so I cant imagine they will let them use it to buy our military.

      So, no, they can't.
    • bobjohnsonmilw, on 01/22/2008, -5/+2Actually, they'd be doing humanity a favor by repossessing the military industrial complex.
  • orangetiki, on 01/22/2008, -6/+8China wouldn't have to pick up a rifle. All they would have to do is not make things for us anymore, and stop buying off our debt. They can put the screws to us fast.
    • Rich711, on 01/22/2008, -1/+6And since China's money is based in that same US debt (which is not in dollars but US treasury bonds ) that you mention an obviously know nothing about, all we have to do is not honor those bonds. Their dollar becomes worthless and they can no longer feed their people. Their people starve and rebel and get slaughtered by their military.

      But no, youre right it would suck not to be able to get crappy Chinese made products from Wal-Mart. We'd have to give all that business to India. That would be a nightmare. Boy, that would sure show us.
    • Crosshare, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4Your statement is a contradiction. We are China's largest importer, so if they quit sending us exports it would only help our or someone else's economy against paying off that debt. Why would they try to commit economic suicide at this point?
  • tattertech, on 01/22/2008, -1/+12This is news how? Countries always have plans drawn up for even unlikely scenarios, let alone one's like this...
  • stackered, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3I knew my anti-transformer bunker would eventually come in handy...
  • urza, on 01/22/2008, -17/+5this is all planned people WAKE THE ***** UP !!! Read Albert Pike letter to Mazzini,"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4
    Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.
    • Rich711, on 01/22/2008, -3/+7You are a retard. Go reread "Behold a Pale Horse" for the 50th time and look for free mason anagrams in todays crossword puzzle.

      Does believing the world is run by an evil group of super-smart, super-elites with a super secret plan make you feel like you, having discovered this "super-secret plan", are as their doppleganger noble and by default also super-smart and super-elite?

      Because you're not, you're just a vain dumbass with way too much time on your hands.
    • KMartSheriff, on 01/22/2008, -2/+5Paragraphs are your friend.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3God damn I'm sick and tired of twits yelling "WAKE UP" at the top of their lungs. I'm going to go take a nap. At least when I'm sleeping, no one is trying to get me to "WAKE UP"
      • Rich711, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1WAKE UP!!! WAKE UP, SPACEMONKEY!!! THERE ARE ZIONISTS HIDING UNDER YOUR BED!!!!
  • airiox, on 01/22/2008, -0/+23We saw yesterday how stupid it would be for China to attack us. Their economy is deeply entrenched with ours. Anyone who tells you China will attack us is gravely mistaken and filled with propaganda from the war mongers.
    • zeromous, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6I agree. Seems to me the US and China, are like Corsican Brothers squeezing each other's nut-sacks in retaliation for the last squeeze.
  • h3lx, on 01/22/2008, -3/+7I can't think of any military scenario that doesn't involve an exchange of nuclear weapons. A conventional land war with China in un-winable.
    • ThetaDot, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3"A conventional land war with China in un-winable." -- Truth.
    • echo2501, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1... and never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
  • mattmollysdad, on 01/22/2008, -2/+17I hope this post has nothing to do with our (US Air-force) as they completely left out the part that Taiwan had elections 2 weeks ago and the KMT won huge...which means that the NEW ruling party of Taiwan has NO THOUGHT OF DECLARING INDEPENDENCE FROM MAINLAND CHINA... they are even planning to have direct flights between Taipei n Beijing n Shanghai. Also the KMT believes in total restoration of a ONE CHINA... and they will do this thru investing... and as China grows so will their common interests.
    • Hangly, on 01/23/2008, -0/+1Finally someone who knows what he's talking about.
  • AlienMushroom, on 02/21/2008, -16/+1The US just wants Taiwan as a step stone to invade China and the rest of Asia.
  • angrycat, on 01/22/2008, -10/+3In the meantime Canada fends off US refugees with hockey sticks while yelling "TOLD YA SO".
  • yellowsnowcone, on 01/22/2008, -8/+20China owns US debt. So what?

    Have you ever defaulted on a loan? Who do you think hurts more in that situation? The person who lent the money, or the person who borrowed?

    China is f**ked because it holds so much US debt, not the other way around. It's the Americans who should be laughing.
    • zeromous, on 01/22/2008, -4/+3EXACTLY! They hurt even more from a gradual reduction in the value of the US dollar. Is bush responsible? If So, he may have saved America !!!! LOL
      • zeromous, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3Seriously though, I think this has been the plan since the early 1970s with reconciliation with China under Nixon. Guess who was on the joint chiefs back then?
    • tankd0g, on 01/22/2008, -7/+7My god you are ignorant. That's not how it works. What China holds is US bonds. If they put those on the market today to liqidate them, they get paid the US dollar INSTANTLY goes to $.01 Canadian.
      • zeromous, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3that's not really how they work IIRC. In fact this is exactly how you lose money on bonds, deflating their value!

        Again Im no ECON expert, but Bonds are not 100% safe and they are not guaranteed no matter what it says on the certificate.
    • KMartSheriff, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2But dude if we did that they might write us a nasty letter, telling us how mean we are!
    • amenhotep, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1China has been selling US bond in small amount for 8 months, guess what happended?
    • brad3378, on 01/23/2008, -0/+2Never ***** over a bank that has nuclear weapons and 1,300,000,000 people
  • Brook07, on 01/22/2008, -8/+12Buried for fear-mongering, deceptive title.
  • warlokaz2004, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3with so many bases 'within' the range of China's missles, we should announce we are 'closing' our bases in Korea and japan. This would appease the Ron Paul Isolationist crowd, and at the same time we can redeploy in fun places like Guam and Borneo out of the way of Chinese missles. After that we need to beef up our sub fleet.
  • KillaJazzBass, on 01/22/2008, -2/+12Every nation has the right to draw up plans to protect its self.
  • cozb, on 01/22/2008, -0/+14diggers, what do think military planners do for a living? Every country has plans of attack against each other.. we have them for Canada, England, etc.
    • bosssmiley, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2True. The British MoD actually has contingency plans for alien first contact (drawn up at the suggestion of the Duke of Edinburgh, no less!) - doesn't mean it's ever likely to happen.
      Buried for inaccurate article title. The article does not talk about an attack on the USA, it talks about an attack on US military assets stationed in East Asia.
  • Rich711, on 01/22/2008, -6/+11We buy 99% (yes 99%) of their exports. How are they going to defend against that? China's currency is backed in the US debt shares they hold (that's right, NOT DOLLARS but debt shares). They can ONLY use that debt in business with US companies after the US senate okays it and the treasury accepts them. The moment they wage war, the US treasury can choose to not honor the debt.

    This is like watching special ed students argue about batman vs. superman.

    But, but, but, what about Zionism! uh uh, nuclear weapons!!

    This is a perfect example of the retards that have taken over digg and made it lame and not fun anymore.
    • zeromous, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1I've been saying this since before Sept 11th, when the US and isreal were financing exploration for a Uzebekistan oil pipeline, and bases in that location.
      When Sept 11th hit, I was convinced the plan is in play. I wouldn't underestimate the US as at least it seems to me, they know what they are doing, and how best to get there.

      This doesn't mean that it doesn't scare me at all. But as the ancient Chinese curse says "May you live in interesting times..."
      • zeromous, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Btw 99%? Let's be real here. Its a lot, but its not even over 30%
    • emjaychina, on 01/22/2008, -1/+5Rofl... USA buys about 15% of Chinas exports. You have no clue what you are talking about.

      Here is a list..

      Following are the latest figures about China's trade with its top ten partners from January to September.


      -- Japan: total, US$64.726 billion, up 8.3 percent year-on-year; Exports to Japan, US$32.740 billion, up 10 percent; Imports, US$31.986 billion, up 6.6 percent.


      -- The United States: total, US$60.077 billion, up 9. 9 percent; Exports, US$40.306 billion, up 4.8 percent; Imports, US$19.770 billion, up 21.9 percent.


      -- The European Union: total, US$56.851 billion, up 12. 6 percent; Exports, US$30.110 billion, up 5.9 percent; Imports, US$26.741 billion, up 21.2 percent.


      -- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: total, US$40.680 billion, up 2.8 percent; Exports, US$33.681 billion up 2.9 percent; Imports, US$6.999 billion, up 2. 6 percent.


      -- ASEAN countries: total, US$30.334 billion, up 6.8 percent; Exports, US$13.138 billion, up 6 percent; Imports, US$17.196 billion, up 7.4 percent.


      -- The Republic of Korea: total, US$26.714 billion, up 6 percent; Exports