BF2S Forums China protests US arms sales, warns of 'serious' impact

LividBovine wrote:

@nukchebi0,   I just read the entire thread and still have not found anything useful from your posts.  I don't have the time to read a book, much less for a book about International Realtions.  I took IR @ St. Olaf here in MN, and I consider myself less informed about many IR topics than many here.

Dilbert_X wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

The difference primarily is that the entities selling to Taiwan are private industries.  In the case of China selling to other countries, it is the government that is responsible for the sale.

The US govt approves export licenses, so its exactly the same.

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US govt approves export licenses, so its exactly the same.

The govt merely reviews to ensure restricted technology isn't being sold and (as LB pointed out) sanctions aren't being violated.

Then it also depends how it was sold, whether it was DCS, FMS, etc.

Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 pretty much ensures that the US HAS to sell arms to Taiwan for defensive purposes. Gee, for the first time the US is selling weapons to a non-aggressive democratic state people want to cow tow to China? Where are your fucking backbones people.

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The govt merely reviews to ensure restricted technology isn't being sold and (as LB pointed out) sanctions aren't being violated.

Then it also depends how it was sold, whether it was DCS, FMS, etc.

Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 pretty much ensures that the US HAS to sell arms to Taiwan for defensive purposes. Gee, for the first time the US is selling weapons to a non-aggressive democratic state people want to cow tow to China? Where are your fucking backbones people.

Eh? Take it easy, Francis.

We were merely pointing out to our misguided colleague that his views and attempted comparisons were incorrect. That is all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Gee, for the first time the US Russia is selling weapons to a non-aggressive democratic state (Cuba)people want to cow tow to China the USA? Where are your fucking backbones people.

Fixed.

Commie Killer wrote:

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but.... The Patriot missiles are defensive. The Mid Course Interceptor is defensive. Nuclear weapons are OFFENSIVE.

I agree that the PRC and Russia should not be complaining in these scenarios, just as the US does not complain when S-300 missiles are sold to Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-02-02 12:52:00)

Commie Killer wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but.... The Patriot missiles are defensive. The Mid Course Interceptor is defensive. Nuclear weapons are OFFENSIVE.

I agree that the PRC and Russia should not be complaining in these scenarios, just as the US does not complain when S-300 missiles are sold to Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

Only one nation on earth has ever used nuclear weapons offensively, and that was in a rather unique period where it didn't mean mutually assured destruction for them. Today nuclear weapons are deterrents. Using them offensively is like sticking a gun to the roof of your mouth and pulling the trigger.

Aside 1: The sale to Taiwan is obviously nowhere near the Cuban missile crisis in terms of gravity obviously.

Aside 2: Of course China are going to complain about the sale. The US are supplying military gear to one side of a civil war in which they were engaged, a government who fled mainland China with the entire gold reserve of the country and who have a rather ludicrous constitutional obligation to exercise control over the whole of mainland China.

No. I typed up a reply but its not worth it. This is only facepalm worthy.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Eh? Take it easy, Francis.

We were merely pointing out to our misguided colleague that his views and attempted comparisons were incorrect. That is all.

Sorry that was more directed towards Dilbert. I see him bitch about Israeli abuses but I never see him once start a thread about Chinese abuses.

To Bovine: Taiwanese people make better chinese food. At least we don't use human fetus in our dishes.

You people are practically the same thing regarding language/religion/ethnicity. It's just one was influenced by the Soviets, the other by Americans. Both equally retarded for doing so, less so than the Koreans, I guess.

Although the religion may be a question mark. I wouldn't be surprised if Taiwan is turning into a Christian place like South Korea, whilst the PRC is turning into an atheist leadership cult like North Korea, or some shit.

FEOS wrote:

Anyone who says any two dialects of Chinese are basically the same clearly hasn't tried to learn them.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Well I wouldn't have thought Taiwan would have diverged so much from the mainland in such a short time, especially cos the Government is from the mainland. I was talking about the standard Han Chinese ethnic group, I know there's all sorts of other ethnic groups in China/Taiwan and languages but I was talking about the main one (Standard Mandarin)

You can bring up USA/Canada but they have been different places for much longer than since the Chinese civil war. Also UK/Ireland actually is an ethnic and religious division.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Ah the typical "I won't even dignify that with a response" tactic

I learned something interesting today. Apparently China 'only' owns about 23% of US debt. So much for them totally owning us as some people put it.

Better then banging my face off the desk at the end. I really don't know how to make this any simpler to understand.

If they all of a sudden asked us to pay for that 23%, we'd still be pretty screwed.

Yeha it'd definitely hurt, but it wouldn't mark the fall of America.

Commie Killer wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but.... The Patriot missiles are defensive. The Mid Course Interceptor is defensive. Nuclear weapons are OFFENSIVE.

I agree that the PRC and Russia should not be complaining in these scenarios, just as the US does not complain when S-300 missiles are sold to Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

Only one nation on earth has ever used nuclear weapons offensively, and that was in a rather unique period where it didn't mean mutually assured destruction for them. Today nuclear weapons are deterrents. Using them offensively is like sticking a gun to the roof of your mouth and pulling the trigger.

Aside 1: The sale to Taiwan is obviously nowhere near the Cuban missile crisis in terms of gravity obviously.

Aside 2: Of course China are going to complain about the sale. The US are supplying military gear to one side of a civil war in which they were engaged, a government who fled mainland China with the entire gold reserve of the country and who have a rather ludicrous constitutional obligation to exercise control over the whole of mainland China.

No. I typed up a reply but its not worth it. This is only facepalm worthy.

Of particular theoretical importance to realism, and illustrative of its emphasis on regarding nuclear weapons materialistically, is an analysis of their impact on the international offense-defense balance. Offensive-defensive balance is a theoretical way of describing the advantages conferred to a side in the conflict by either defending or attacking—if the balance is weighed towards offense, the attacker has an advantage, and were the opposite true, the defender does (Glaser & Kaufmann, 1998). This is extremely important, as it dictates the tendencies of states when engaged in competition. As expected, states are more aggressive and inclined to fight a war when instigating it and invading their opponent has a greater chance of succeeding and thus being beneficial. Nuclear weapons, when impacting this balance, are seen to have increased the advantage of offense so dramatically that the resultant balance is weighed heavily towards defense, at least between nuclear armed powers, or when a nuclear armed power is the attacked. Though initially confusing, it quickly makes sense when considering the nature of a nuclear attack. Any usage of a nuclear weapons will have a ruinous effect on whatever targets the user designated for attack—whatever is targeted will be destroyed by the barrage of bombs, artillery shells or ballistic missiles. However, while initially a great benefit for the attacker, it invites reciprocation by the attacked enemy with their own arsenal, which no rational leader would ever permit to become a possibility. In essence, the possession of nuclear weapons gives a state a powerful response to any attack, and other governments, cognizant of this, will not attack. Consequently, nuclear weapons send the balance of weaponry heavily towards defense (which is, as some realists explain and will be elucidated later, the reason for the relative peace of the last sixty-five years.)

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-02-04 00:11:39)