|
|
|
|
|
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.]
Jing,
Do you think 500,000 U.S. service men could control 1 billion pissed off people?
As powerful as America is, it's achilles heel is the fact Americans don't take casualties very well.
If, say, 5000 marines were to die in a war that the U.S. started, how quickly do you think the U.S. people would demand a pull out? Look at Vietnam.
If the U.S. got nuked though, the gloves would be off and we'd all die.
I'd rather have a magnetic bomb dropped on me than a nuke. At least with the former, I can live and fight another day. Guns don't need electronic gizmos to kill.
huu76
Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 01:52:04 (PDT)
I must say the amount of jingosim on this sight is rather laughable. First of all almost no one here has a grip on the Kashmir situation either historically or in the light of current events.
And while I've enjoyed hearing the Indian side of things when it comes to Pakistan allows me to share a more balanced view.
India's conventional power is superior to Pakistans yes. This is due to her size alone. But the dynamics of warfare between the two nations would make a conventional war between the two countries a long and difficult nettle to grasp. Both countries have gone to war three times and neither side has ever gained an inch of ground one way or another. And while past performance is no indictaion for future results it does lay down good ground work. Both countries have sped up thier military modernization plans and while India has the 4th largest army in the world the 5th largest is Pakistan.
To further complicate matters Pakistan holds the high ground and most of her military hardware is designed and positioned to counter a large scale Indian invasion force. India's ability to enter Pakistani airspace is limited due to vulnerability of forward air bases and an unlimited supply of stinger and harpoon S.A.M.S. (thanks to the U.S.).
The end result is that it would take a lot of time and an enormous tolerance for blood letting on Indias domestic side to ensure Pakistans defeat. Moreover India does not possess enough armored divisions to hold an area inside Pakistan for long. And this is particularly difficult since anti-tank missle launchers are not uncommon in that nation. Compound this with the fact that almost all Pakistani own either hand guns, rifles or automatic weapons the prospect for a guerilla war if Pakistan were ever occupied would be the next natural progression of the war.
When all is said and done the truth of the matter is that most military analyst seem to think that India can defeat Pakistan only if she uses over 80% of her military resources, and what would be left over after the conventional war was finished would be eaten alive in a guerilla war that India could never hope to win. And the truth that the Inian military realizes is that to defeat Pakistan, India would have to pull troops from along her North and North-Eastern borders which leave India subject to the whims of an invasion force of 14 Chinese divisions wich could take over all of the northern border states within a few days
As far as the Indian government, the BJP is the equivalent of Pat Robertson and the 700 club taking over the white house and congress. The BJP has already began ethnic cleansing pogroms of Muslims in Gujurat and Kashmir and the sad reality of society in India is that the Muslim of Pakistan have very little to fear from the BJP when compared to what the Muslims of India are subjected to.
Turk
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 18:21:30 (PDT)
ka...I don't believe Muslims should be targeted in a secular country like India...but...that doesn't mean anything. We have umpteen different religions in this country and no one cries about it. Muslims continue to cry everywhere.
Yaqoot...your entire article is just wrong. Pakistan is the only country I'd be worried about at this point for proliferation. Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism...India has known it...USA knows it but can't say it...UK has said it. China knows it. Japan knows it.
JING CHA...you are absolutly right...from the US perspective...nukes aren't even needed...but I know everyone will always remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima...some may remember them as a war victory...I will remember them as terrorist attacks. And I too find it interesting what America says and does about nukes...but remember this...it's money that makes the world go round...not nukes...America gives $ for no nukes. Superpower = economy + internal stability + military might + technology...America has them all.
bringittogether
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 16:11:31 (PDT)
Jing Cha, I disagree. I think even now, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons far outstrip any other known weapons of mass destruction including biological weapons.
Just a couple nuclear warheads could wipe out several million Pakistani/Indians within minutes.
What I do agree with is that the cause of concern for nuclear war shouldn't make us any less concerned for conventional war.
ka
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 12:25:48 (PDT)
what are you talking about??? EMP bombs cant do anything. Get your facts straight. Its only a freakin theroy that has no scientific proof. 300 yrs??? dumb dumb dumb. If it actually works it will only temorarily disrupte the circuits prehaps even burn them out. but it wont prevent the people from rebuilding their infrastructure. And yes nukes are very relevent to the world. DUH
SOG
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 09:32:36 (PDT)
Please tell me you guys, what do you mean by U.S. "containing" China? During the cold war, U.S. tried to "contain" China, and China is moving away from communism. It is true that the U.S. has given security guarantee to Taiwan meanwhile giving a vague doublespeak on how U.S. adheres to one China policy. Containing China from what? Aside from Taiwan, noone thinks China is about to invade Russia, Mongolia, Nepal, Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan, or any other country that borders China. Contain China from Sratley Islands? U.S. is not even a claimant and has not sent the U.S. Seven's Fleet on behalf of half a dozen other nations claiming those islands. So contain China from what? And what is the big deal if U.S. has bases in Asia, I think the Japanese, Koreans, Filippinos, and any other country has a right to ally themselves with any other country.
US scared of China? US is probably more afraid of Russia then China even now. Afterall, Russia still has the capability to annihilate every living human being on U.S. soil, China does not. But someone says, "oh but Russia is no longer America's enemy." Neither is China, please someone remind us of what Richard Nixon and Deng Xiao Ping did together during the cold war.
What I do fear however, is hearing Asian nationalists saying the same things that I remembr young German and Italian youths used to say about how all the other Europeans had "their" time with "their" colonies. That how they need to expand for their "breathing room". How their past glories are prelude to their "destiny" to be number one in the world. Doesn't this sound so familiar?
So I see, Japan and Korea is rich because they are America's biaches, but India and China are poor because they value their own "internal" heritage and identity. India and China were both West's "biaches" too, so I guess during those times, they must have been very wealthy. It is good thing then that poor countries decide that high infant mortality, high crime rate, high poverty, and high rate of AIDS growth is a price well worth to keep as long as they do things that's different from what big bad America says. Who cares about absolute GDP, it is people's lives that is important. We should be thinking about per capita GDP. Only people who talk about absolute GDP seems to be people who see their country as a self-sentient organism.
I think in the light of 9/11, U.S. considers Islamic terrorists, like India, to be it's greatest threat. Not China. It's very tiring to see people constantly pitting the U.S. vs. China theme. It is time for some perspective: China has no navy to project it's conventional forces anywhere near U.S.A. China has very small nuclear arsenal closer in line with the small numbers of nukes Europe then what Russia or U.S. has. Last time U.S. and China engaged each other in a war(Korean war) both sides suffered heavy casualties and ended in a draw. China has joined "western" economic system and is moving away from command economy. China also has a stifled democracy movement, just as other Asian, South American, African, countries had. China and American economic commerce is growing day to day. U.S. has decided to cut back it's nuclear arsenal. U.S. government has bent over backwards to remain silent about Chinese human rights violations.
a tid bit of reality check.
ka
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 08:02:28 (PDT)
Nuclear weapons arent very important anymore. People fear their destructive power but THEY COMPLETELY IGNORE even more impeding dangers such as economic enslavement by other countries or invasion by other countries determined to find terrorists that may or may not be there.
That is just an abstract idea but in relations to weapons, there are bombs and guns developed in the past few years by America mostly that are far more destructive than nukes.
For instance, If America dropped an Electromagnetic Pulse Bomb on Japan or China. their entire city would be dark and free of electronics for the next 300 years.
An Emp bomb can stop the launch of nukes. Its very interesting how America rallys for the destruction of Nuclear weapona in existence considering America is the only country ever to use them on another country. Furthermore, America's weaponry is so powerful now, it wouldnt need nukes to take a country. It could cause serious devastation with only a handful of B2 Bombers or F22's
JING CHA
Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 05:21:52 (PDT)
everyone seems to be obsessed with Pakistans missle program and her nuclear program, Pakistan, as one of the writers referred to on this site is no Libya or Iran or Syria or North Korea let me make something very clear, Pakistan remains the most responsible state as far as preventing nuclear proliferation is concerned, if anyone should be worried it should be worries about the Israelis who go about selling all US provided technology to everyone to make bucks, I challenge you to find one incident where Pakistan has sold or passed on any nuclear rlated technology to anyone, we worked very hard to attain the status and Pakistan will be damned if we pass it on for money. Yes people say we bought the technology ourselves well WRONG, again, since 1982, Pakistan has been under the strictest sanctions yet, our missle range is on the rise with the Abdali and Ghaznavi tested last week ( and successfully if I may add ), no country can do that with sanctions imposed. You can think whatever you want to, the truth is 99.9% of our technology is stand alone, indeginous and meant to be defensive. I hope this clears a few things, the US and the West in general should worry about the extremests in their own countries instead of focussing on us and that too focussing on dressing the issues instead of making a genuine effort to solve the problms that create and breed terrorism in the first place. Not many people realize that the likes of Mulah Omar and Osama bin Laden have actually been trained by the CIA against the Russians in Afghanistan then once the war was over, they were left in Pakistans lap and conveniently branded as terrorists, its the US's fault not Pakistan, we have limited means to deal with these charcters and the fact is even the US has not been able to track both of them down for the last 6 months!
Yaqoot yaqoot@hotmail.com
Monday, June 10, 2002 at 20:41:39 (PDT)
Bringittogehter
What can I say? I can't justify what Pakistan is doing to India. I mean if Mexico sent terrorists and Assassins into the U.S. for our lack of protection for illegal Mexican immigrants, we too would be furious. But I do understand why Kashmiris would want to be in a Muslim polity. Afterall, the whole reason why Hindu/Muslim alliance broke down after colonialization, I'm not too familiar with South Asian history, is because Muslims feared living in Hindu Polity.
I really don't know the area nor the history, I can't say what India can do, I'm sorry. What can I say? India is between a rock and a hard place. I do hope that India can be the greater role model in South Asian politics.
p.s. I still can't see "white" alliance against "asian" alliance. I mean, Northern europeans looks down on southern europeans, "aryan" germans looked down on "slavic" jews, just like Chinese and Indians have frictions.
ka
Monday, June 10, 2002 at 12:33:08 (PDT)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|