|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
ANTAGONIZING CHINA OVER NMD
(New 6/20/01.)
lobal peace and prosperity depends to a remarkable degree on robust exchanges between the world's richest nation and the world's most populous. Considering that fact, the leaders in Washinton D.C. and Beijing have been either tragically star-crossed or remarkably cavalier about provoking confrontation.
In 1996 Beijing fired a pair of ballistic missiles across the Taiwan Strait under the pretext of "military exercises", prompting the U.S. to send a carrier battle group in response. In 1999 the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy in Kosovo and ascribed it to an intelligence error.
In mid 2000 the two nations seemed about to put the bad blood behind them when President Clinton struck a deal for U.S. approval of China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Then George Bush vowed to commit untold billions to building a space-based national missile defense (NMD) system to detect and destroy ballistic missiles that might threaten the U.S. A clear effort at upsetting the global balance of power, charged Beijing, vowing to commit whatever resources necessary to counter NMD. Its predictably harsh and intransigent stance toward a crippled U.S. spy plane forced to land on Hainan Island produced another standoff which, for several tense days, seemed capable of triggering a shooting war.
What American wouldn't want a shield from foreign ballistic missiles? But the NMD is hardly a sure thing. It's premised on technology that won't exist for a decade or more. It will end up costing well over $100 billion dollars. Meanwhile its mere existence on drawing boards sours relations with China, Russia and other nations. At present all it guarantees is another arms race. The only way it makes strategic sense is as a means to bankrupt a nascent geopolitical rival by forcing it into an arms race it can't afford. Look at what the nuclear arms race did to Russia.
Does the U.S. stand to gain or lose by using the NMD to threaten and alienate China?
This interactive article is closed to new input.
Discussions posted during the past year remain available for browsing.
CONTACT US
|
ADVERTISING INFO
© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.
|
|
|
|
WHAT YOU SAY
[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]
You talk pretty high and mighty for someone that is reaping the benefits of living in the evil US of A. I had to laugh when you talk about how the Chinese government only wants whats best for it's citizens. It must be nice to live in fantasyland. The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about it's people. They are a commodity. Do you ever read anything other than the sports section or the funnies? Do you honestly believe that the Chinese people are free? Go to China and see how easily you can go from one city to the next. Try and get unresticted internet access. Try and publish your own newspaper or "opposition" paper. Try standing on the street corner and make a speech that disagrees with government policies. Then try and survive in one of their prisons. Maybe they'll put you into one of their work programs or try and rehabilitate you by letting you rot in there. China is an evil empire. They are constantly testing the US to see how far they can push us. They did it recently by testing missles near Taiwan. And we know that they have many spies here in the US (Wen Ho Lee is a spy)and thanks to the Clinton administration they have been able to access many of the US's top secret installations.
The US wasn't wrong about Russia being the evil empire. Just because it doesn't have the same super power status that it once had doesn't mean that it wasn't a threat. That's like saying "well, they shot at me but the bullet didn't hit me so ...I guess it wasn't that bad".
I agree with you that most of our military actions are for economic reasons. What's wrong with that? That's how we preserve our standard of living. Like I said it's easy to criticize American policy from the comfort of your living room. Besides you're not the one making the sacrifice for the freedoms that you enjoy.
Tianna Man
Saturday, December 08, 2001 at 01:27:39 (PST)
GodBlessAmerica,
It is crazy China conspiracy and USA conspiracy theories like that, which start Cold Wars in the first place.
Of course they don't think like Americans they're Chinese.
I support the NMD effort, but not for reason you are stating.
Military experts believe Bin Laden has a "suitcase" nuclear weapons for suicide bombers. Not a missle. The NMD is worthless against that.
If we had the NMD it would not have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Stop mixing everything together, so you can spout some "hardline" views. It makes you seem less crediable.
AC dropout
Monday, November 19, 2001 at 11:20:18 (PST)
The NMD is a frickin' joke!!! You think this costly experiment is going to protect you from the rest of the world? You want to protect yourself from being nuked? We can't even provide adequate airport security (Sept 11). What makes you think that investing $100 billion in some sci-fi force field will pay off in the end? Rather than engaging in this mad dog psychological Cold War pissing contest all over again, why not try some diplomacy. The U.S. should rethink its Middle East policy before going off and alienating and frustrating more people in this world with their military "might."
And for those of you who are looking to label China as the next "Evil Empire", you are as ignorant and misled as the Americans in the 80s who thought that Russians and Communism were the personification of evil. I can tell you that most people in China could care less about world politics and spreading their influence abroad. They just want to get rich (like everyone else). Or in the case of the majority of those 1.2 billion people, to have food on the table regularly. And the Chinese government only cares about social stability, constant economic growth, and to be left alone in terms of its policies with regards to Taiwan and human rights. The Chinese are not our enemy.
We are our own enemy. Looking for enemies where there are none. Picking fights only when we have a vested economic interest in the outcome. Preaching one thing but doing the opposite.
I will wager that humanitarian efforts, diplomacy, and not engaging in military incursions around this world will go much farther towards making this world and this country a safer place than building this sham that is the NMD.
Valley Chinese Dude
Friday, November 16, 2001 at 23:11:43 (PST)
I don't know where people get the idea that China is a wonderful, peaceful nation. How soon do we forget the Tianaman Square massacre? Anyone that has ever visited or lived in China knows that it is an oppressive aggressive country that has it's eyes on world domination. That may sound like conspiracy thinking but China has always stated that it wants to spread it's influence around the world. They don't think like Americans. They are more patient and think nothing of accomplishing this goal over many generations. The cold war is not over, it's just that the enemy has shifted and speaks Chinese instead of Russian. Building a NMD is a good idea. Who cares if China or Russia don't like it? That's like saying I don't like it when someone tries to block my shot when I'm playing basketball. What happens if a nutcase like Osama Bin Laden had a nuclear weapon? Russia has admitted that some of their nuclear inventory is unaccounted for. It's believed that the Russian Mafia sold the material to God knows who. We can't retaliate against terrorists because it's not a country that's attacking us, they are individuals or groups and without a NMD we are defenseless.
GodBlessAmerica
Friday, November 16, 2001 at 01:20:42 (PST)
I think that China dislikes NMD, because of the fact that China's Nuclear arsenal is relativly small. Not that there is any thing wrong with that. Its just that NMD means that they have to modernize and inhance their nukes. Personally I think that the US should be trying to work with China and be trying to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons, but by building NMD it does the exact opposite.
ABMrules/NMDsucks
Tuesday, November 06, 2001 at 17:49:56 (PST)
The NMD development is a reflection of leadership in USA. Pres. Clinton was definitely a "A New World Order" type of leader. He seem to want to move away from "polarization" policy and would engage countries in a political areana rather than use force.
Pres. G.W. Bush is definitely on the other end of the spectrum with his foriegn policy. It is almost as he seems more confortable with "Di-polarism" politics with Asia, hence, the decision of the gov't to sell more arms to Taiwan.
His decision with the NMD is more of an issue of how the republican feel they can stimulate the econmony and advance overall pure Research & Development efforts in the USA. Defense spending usually results in creating a lot of jobs and also promotes advance pure research in Universities and Labs all across the USA. Without the advancement of pure research USA will fall behind in the World in technology advancement.
China will of course advance it military technology as time goes on. Because it doesn't want the "Open Door Policy" to repeat itself and lease out Hong Kong and Macau for 99 years.
However, the fear of an uncontrolable arms race is almost non-existent. Both USA and China have seen the effects of Russia trying to keep up in an arms race. Since China core leadership now are more being made up of highly educated politicians, instead of grade school drop out revolutionaries, they will act more non-radically on the world stage. Case in point the Spy Plane incident Hainan, was a chess match of getting apologies from the parties involved, not a shoot out.
The only thing China and USA disagree on directly is Taiwan. USA with their out dated alliance to the KMT of Taiwan against China new found confidence that they are ready to execute a definitive closure of the 1945 civil war.
AC dropout
Friday, October 19, 2001 at 09:14:43 (PDT)
I heard somewhere the US spends MORE on military than the REST of the world combined. It's funny, how it's always labeled, "DEFENSE SPENDING." Defense against what?? I think when we spend more than the rest of the combined, we can no longer consider that defense spending. I think it should be appropriately labeled for what it is, OFFENSIVE BUILDUP. I'm just glad I live in the US. Otherwise I'd be nervous.
Other than that. I think this is the best country in the world.
random thoughts
Friday, July 13, 2001 at 14:55:54 (PDT)
It makes perfectly good sense if you look past all the rhetorical propaganda that they're spouting off to the media in Washington. As your narrative insinuates, concern over China, not some rogue state, is probably the driving force behind the push to create the NMD. After all, what country would allow a nuclear tipped ballistic missle, aimed at a US city, to be launched from its soil? It would be a death sentence for the people of that country since we would retaliate by turning their cities to glass. If a rogue state, or a terrorist organization, were to attempt a nuclear attack on us, there are much more stealthful/cost effective platforms to utilize than ballistic missles. After all, any U Haul van could be had with a major credit card. But getting back to concerns over China, the world is moving towards a tripolar reality (in my opinion anyway); the European Union (not since the Roman Empire has history seen a unification of Europe the likes of which we're seeing now), the Americas (as seen in recent events such as the formation of NAFTA), and a Chinese dominated Asia (with Russia being the wild card). China, more than any other country, or group of countries, has the potential to challenge us militarily and economically in this new millenium. It would only be natural for them to attempt to increase their influence over their part of the world when they become strong enough to do so. In my view, the NMD is a modern day version of gunboat diplomacy that our government is using to try and keep the Chinese from becoming the dominant power in Asia. As for what we stand to gain, maybe it's cheaper to pursue the development of the NMD than to try and defend Taiwan when the Chinese finally decide to take back their "renegade" province. What do we stand to lose? As you already pointed out, good relations with the world's next superpower for one. But it seems that there's someone up in Washington that is willing to be on bad terms with China if that's what it takes to contain them. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. Seeing as how I'm no expert on Sino-American relations, please feel free to let me know if you see any serious flaws in my reasoning.
sabot sabot1967@yahoo.com
Tuesday, June 26, 2001 at 00:07:14 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|