Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 03, 2013

Will China's Rise Lead To War?

For the first time in recent history more financial trade is done in Chinese yuan than in euros. The yuan is now second but still far behind the U.S. dollar. Its rise in trade usage compared to the euro has been very recent and rapid and is certainly not yet finished. But the U.S. dollar is still second to none:

The currency had an 8.66 percent share of letters of credit and collections in October, compared with 6.64 percent for the euro, Swift said in a statement today. China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Germany and Australia were the top users of yuan in trade finance, according to the Belgium-based financial-messaging platform.

The yuan had the fourth-largest share of global trade finance in January 2012 with 1.89 percent, while the euro’s was the second-biggest at 7.87 percent, Swift said.
...
The U.S. dollar led all currencies with an 81.08 percent share of letters of credit and collections in October, down from 84.96 percent in January 2012, according to data compiled by Swift.

The Japanese yen lost its position as one of the top three trade currencies.

These move are part of the changes in strategic balance in South-East Asia. New alliances may appear and there may even be a wider war on the horizon. This at least when one believes the predictions of realist political scientist John Mearsheimer. In an interview with the Chinese Global Times he predicts that China's ‘Peaceful rise’ will meet US containment.

The US is now by far the most powerful state on the planet, and it is also the most powerful state in East Asia. But as China rises and becomes increasingly powerful, it will want to dominate Asia the way the US dominates the Western hemisphere. The US of course will go to great lengths to prevent China from dominating Asia. In other words, there will be an intense security competition between the two countries.

Mearsheimer does not think that China wants war but he believes that some kind of armed conflict will arise because some smaller state, likely then backed by the Unites States, will provoke a crisis. This he believes will happen sooner rather than later because China is still growing and taking it on while it is relatively weaker now is easier and less risky:

[T]here is no way that China can avoid scaring its neighbors and the US as it gets very powerful, just because it will be so big and will have so much military capability. When states look at other states and try to determine how threatening they are, they invariably focus on their capabilities, not their intentions, because you cannot know intentions. Nobody can know what China's intentions will be in the decades ahead. But the mere fact that China is getting increasingly powerful and may someday become even more powerful than the US is naturally going to scare all the neighbors and the US.

Mearsheimer thinks that the very militarized U.S. "pivot to Asia" will be bigger than many envision for now. While that will be good news for the Middle East, Latin America and Europe it is bad news for Asia. But what could China actually do to prevent all this?

Posted by b on December 3, 2013 at 17:59 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Financial trade is hardly a benchmark for anything in geopolitical terms. You can safely disregard the yuan story, it's rather meaningless in this context.

Be that all as it may, I'm seeing a lot of "US still the only hyperpower" "China not a superpower" see Bremer and articles of that sort. It's some clumsy stuff, as if they're trying to convince themselves.

The ADIZ tensions will pass... or not. Eventually the Pacific will begin looking like a tiny pond. My best to 22 million Aussies!

Posted by: Ziggy | Dec 3 2013 18:16 utc | 1

"The US is now by far the most powerful state on the planet, and it is also the most powerful state in East Asia"

Well, if the education of our youth is any indication, our power is doomed. We rank very low when compared to many nations, and will not be able to compete globally if we do not reverse this trend.

And considering the adversarial and counterproductive debacle that our two party system has become, we can only predict that our problems, on a wide range of issues, will not be resolved.

Our power is the product of what we once were. It is unsustainable under the cloud of our current inability to govern constructively in a manner that serves our long term interests.

In short, we're fucked. Does anyone here actually believe these bickering self-serving DC maggots have the ability to keep us on top of the global heap? If so, you ain't paying attention.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 3 2013 19:00 utc | 2

what could China actually do (to prevent all this)?

answer = keep doing what china has been doing for the past 30+years
sticking to business, building trading relations,
and most importantly staying out of meaningless wars.

and, last but not least, making sure that the US/EU stay doing what
they've been doing for the past 30+ years, ....for the next 10 years.

simples

Posted by: chris m | Dec 3 2013 19:11 utc | 3

"When states look at other states and try to determine how threatening they are......"

Thats the problem. Like the exchange foff and I are having on the preceding thread, the issue is really one of introspection. By no means an isolationist, I must also recognize that one needs to look inward as well as outward. The "threat" posed by China is one of our own making. There is a wide range of internal problems we suffer that actaully, in the long term, empower not only China, but other nations as well. First and foremost is our inability to educate our youth to a degree that we can hope to compete with nations that recognize the importance of making education a quality experience accessable to the entire social strata. Churning out a generation of fast food servers is hardly the recipe for global dominance. Our future ability to compete globally is about nil considering the state of our system of education.

And, as I stated in my previous post, these self-defeating pieces of shit in DC, bickering like schoolgirls while pretending to represent the interests of "the people", are incapable of leading this nation any direction other than downward. Just turn on the news. Listen to these maggots for five minutes. These worms are gonna turn it around??? Yeah, right.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 3 2013 19:24 utc | 4

Let China sleep. For when the dragon awakes, she will shake the world

- Napoleon on China.

I've posted this slideshow before but think it is good to illustrate how fast China is rising. According to the OECD China will be the world's largest economy by 2016.

It's military technology is advancing alot faster than Americas stagnating force. China's new J-20 stealth fighter jet is the equal of any fighter jet the US has. By 2020 China will have 3 aircraft carriers to America's 10 carriers, but China's are modern, all made after 2010, while America will have 5 that were made in the 70's and 80's, and thus will have to be retired soon.

Same with America's Submarine fleet. The US is due to retire 14 Ohio-Class Submarines over the next few years (most built in the 1980's) and it will cost 100 Billion to replace them. Americas navy (vital for any Pacific war) has gotten old and didn't get the money Post-9/11 that the airforce/army got.

On the issue of the Dollar... well Economics isn't my strong suit but I'm assuming the 16 Trillion in debt and the Yuan moving to break the Petro-Dollar means it won't be top for long. It's not just China that wants to lose the dollar towards a basket of currencies Russia and the Eurozone would both gain alot.

In the end China wins by not getting into a war. Just let America bleed itself. America has shown that it can damage itself, far better than any foreign country can damage it.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Dec 3 2013 19:30 utc | 5

US couldnt defeat ragtag Afghan caveman, isnt dearing to take directly on Iran, how can they possibly take on 10x more powerful China? Real direct military threat to China is not possible. Few very minor skirmishes by US colonies with US backing possible, but nothing more than that.

Plan A failed. I.e. to enslave all ME oil suppliers (including breaking down Iran), and if China doesnt comply - to cut off oil supplies to China to crush it economically. The mere threat of it would make China if not submissive, at least more flexible to "legitimate demands" of West and its Asian colonies. This plan failed.

Plan B could be playing sectarian tensions in China and building up for "color revolutions." This wont change anything thought.

IMHO China's rise to No.1 superpower is inevitable in the upcoming decades, and there is nothing US can do about it. China will keep the same Foreign policy as before - expanding trade and soft power, hard power will come later. What China will do as Top1 is anyone's guess, but I dont think it will be anywhere as bad as US reign.

Posted by: Harry | Dec 3 2013 19:46 utc | 6

For there to be a war between China and the USA, there has to be a casus belli. This is no Tonkin Gulf affair to bring off. China is too big to take on in that fashion. There has to be an existential threat for the US to effectively exterminate a billion Chinese, which is what a war of that type would involve, as the US of A do not go in for half measures. It is therefore hard to see the US engaging unless its government were taken over by a certified madman who was also able to control the military establishment. This is hard to do, and in living memory only Hitler has managed to pull it off.

Posted by: Knut | Dec 3 2013 19:55 utc | 7

"Mearsheimer thinks that the very militarized U.S. "pivot to Asia" will be bigger than many envision for now. While that will be good news for the Middle East, Latin America and Europe it is bad news for Asia. But what could China actually do to prevent all this?"

Nothing. "Never interrupt one's enemy when he is making a mistake" Napoleon Bonaparte

Posted by: Crocodile Chuck | Dec 3 2013 20:44 utc | 8

Mearsheimer was right about the existence of an Israeli lobby-it actually takes considerable talent to attempt to deny it- but he's wrong about China.
As Peter Lee points out on AToL today, the US is already running into problems because its China pivot involves enabling both Abe's Japan and, coming soon, the Park South Korean government to engage in their old aggressive attitudes, a mixture of Cold War and prewar militarisms, towards China.

That won't wash. If the US wants to unite East Asia around Chinese leadership it just has to keep encouraging Mr Abe and Ms Park to act as its allies. The problem is that while the Japanese and south Korean governments are both quasi-fascistic they don't much like each other.
Crocodile Chuck's friend Napoleon, inspired no doubt by Sun Tzu, hits the nail on the head. The best thing for China to do? Make some tea and savour it.

Posted by: bevin | Dec 3 2013 21:06 utc | 9

This is an excellent article on Park's politics:
http://japanfocus.org/-Se_Woong_-Koo/4042

Posted by: bevin | Dec 3 2013 21:12 utc | 10

Biden's visit looks like a laugh a minute...

http://news.yahoo.com/biden-china-tense-reunion-xi-jinping-200023407--politics.html

Posted by: dh | Dec 3 2013 21:53 utc | 11

America should mind its own business, according to a new Pew study.
That's the big story at the Toronto Star website. It confirms what many of us have been predicting. And answers the "oublic opinion" question b asked recently.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/12/03/us_should_mind_its_own_business_internationally_say_most_americans_in_new_study.html

Posted by: bevin | Dec 3 2013 22:45 utc | 12

Have I messed up the thread now??

Posted by: bevin | Dec 3 2013 22:46 utc | 13

I wonder. Will Biden, on behalf of our garment industry, thank the Chinese for thier creative use of child labor?

Gosh, did I say "garment industry"???? Oops, I shoulda said "on behalf of our greedy fucking box store execs". Why, any idiot knows there is no longer anything resembling an American "garment industry". Those in the rag trade simply farm out the "industry" end, and leer thier way to the bank riding on the backs of the slaves "employed" by asian garment factories.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 3 2013 22:50 utc | 14

Naaaaahhhh.....you just made a mistake. It takes a foff to "mess up a thread"

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 3 2013 22:54 utc | 15

"China will want to dominate Asia like the US dominates the Western Hemisphere"

I can't help but think that it takes an American intellectual to assume that the rest of the world aims to conduct themselves like the Americans - domineering and bullying. Are we to believe that China aims to reduce Japan and Korea to banana republics through coups and military intervention?

I think more likely than the US finding a puppet foolish enough to take on the giant, China will enter pull the surrounding states into its sphere of influence with soft power turning the US "pivot to Asia" into a "retreat to Hawaii".

Posted by: guest77 | Dec 3 2013 23:11 utc | 16

If the Japanese population begins to glow in the dark, I can't help but wonder who will accept the evacuees? Or will the rest of the world's population turn day-glo orange as well, negating any urge they may have to offer the Japanese assistance?

We tend to think in line with the foreseable. Considering the huge global population, the obvious ineptitude of our planet's so-called "leaders", and the callous disregard global corporations have for Earth's environment, unforeseable global change is inevitable.

If life teaches us anything, it is that life can change in a heartbeat. No matter your situation this instant, it may be irreversably altered in the blink of an eye.

We're just along for the ride, although we like to delude ourselves into believing we have the wheel. If its not a delusion, and we really are steering, one has to wonder why we are aiming at a brick wall.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 3 2013 23:38 utc | 17

at the end of his major book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Mearsheimer actually endorses a strategy of offensive containment of China by the US.

for all his 'realist' analysis, his politics are straight up imperialist disguised under ideological notions of the 'national interest' and 'national security'.

his main beef with the zionist lobby is that it unbalances US imperialism in the Middle East. he has no critique of american imperialism in the Middle East before the lobby became so powerful after 1967 -- a point underlined by Norman Finkelstein.

Posted by: wevin | Dec 4 2013 0:21 utc | 18

I have a Chinese friend who has over the past few decades has demonstrated a very clear view of Chinese FP and military goals. He believes that China today does not feel it is ready to confront the US in war in the Western Pacific. At this point they are confidant that they could sink any US warship that came within 100 km of their coast line. However, to neutralize US naval power they would have to push the air craft carriers back to 1500 km. At that point aircraft carrier fighter planes would be out of effective range. The weapons that would destroy warships in the 100-300 km range are the standard antiship missiles (such as silk worm and exocet) as well as the ram jet cruise missiles (sunburn-22, -27 and equivalent Chinese copies). The US Navy accepts this and no longer consider using the Formosa Straits as a safe place to station aircraft carriers. It is their development of the antiship ballistic missiles (ASBM) that could extend their killing range out to 1500 km. This is the DF21D that was first introduced in 2009 and is under continuous development.

None of these missiles (excluding the exocet) have ever seen combat so it is impossible to say that they would work as advertised. The US defense establishment is maintaining that our antimissile missiles and the radar controlled gatlin guns of Aegis would protect our ships but there is little doubt that the results of tests of those systems were fabrications. It would be truly ironic if the US ended up losing one of its aircraft carriers because the Navy so intent on more funding fabricated results for defending those damn things.

In response to Colm above, I think China should not put too much faith in building aircraft carriers -- they might be just as obsolete as battleships.

Posted by: ToivoS | Dec 4 2013 0:24 utc | 19

To add to my above comment. Even though China may not feel ready to engage the US in naval combat in the Western Pacific today that does not mean that they might not feel sufficiently provoked to respond militarily. My source, noted above, thinks that they will have perfected their ASBM defense in 9 years. (This is based on some official document -- why 9, not 8 or 10. I think the Chinese still believe in the magic of numbers.)

In any case this recent escalation in tensions are not China's doing. Japan is the primary culprit. Consider the last 2 years. Hillary and Obama announce pivot to Asia. Almost immediately Japan buys the Diaoyu Islands from a private owner and declares sovereignty. This violates an understanding that Japan and China had over those islands going back to 1972. It was stated by Deng Xiaoping, "It does not matter if this question is shelved for some time, say, 10 years. Our generation is not wise enough to find common language on this question. Our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all." Though that was said 40 years ago the Chinese were willing to live with its ambiguity. The Japanese broke this understanding. In terms of timing I have no idea how wise China's latest move was but we must accept that China felt it had to respond to Japan's unilateral claim or possibly lose their own rights to those islands.

BTW, check out a map showing the location of Diaoyu Islands (or Sendaku if so inclined). They are much much closer to Taiwan and the Chinese mainland (200 and 300 km) than to any of Japan's main islands (800 km).

Posted by: ToivoS | Dec 4 2013 0:57 utc | 20

Following up on my last comment:

1. Mearsheimer is such an idiot. Read this quote:

"Businesspeople have only one goal, that's to make more money. They don't care much about geopolitics. Businesspeople want a peaceful Asia, and they want both the US economy and the Chinese economy to flourish so they can make lots of money. My argument is that there is a geopolitical or geo-strategic logic that is independent of the logic that dominates the business community, and it will profoundly influence international politics in Asia in the future. That geopolitical logic is fundamentally different from how businesspeople think, because it's zero-sum."

This shows that he has absolutely no idea about the history of his own country's foreign policy and the leading role of hegemonic class interests in driving it, at least from WW2 to the present. Furthermore, his notion that capitalist competition isn't zero-sum is just plain stupid and reflects a liberal ideology of equal market exchange. Third, his idea that the state can be separated theoretically from the logic of capital accumulation and class formation is just ideological clap trap. The fact of the matter is that the US business community has organized as a class to direct US foreign policy since the early days of WW2, when the Council of Foreign Relations and the State Department joined forces to plan the "Grand Area" of the postwar world. Mearsheimer is just lying or is truly ignorant.

2. His book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, doesn't question whether China can rise peacefully. It actively endorses an offensive US strategy of containment. He is misrepresenting his own words.

3. Mearsheimer, like other US IR scholars, doesn't KNOW anything about other countries or international politics. He just knows his neo-realist axioms and applies them to every country without knowing anything about them.

I can't wait to see the crash and burn of these US IR scholars as the US empire itself crashes.

Posted by: wevin | Dec 4 2013 1:31 utc | 21

"Programme for International Student Assessment" ("PISA") is a test of mathematics, science and reading abilities of 15-year-olds, carried out on random samples of schools in dozens of countries including all the OECD countries. Results from PISA tests published in earlier years showed the Asians got better scores than the Westerners. On 3 Dec 2013 new results were published from a test that was carried out in year 2012 with a focus on mathematics. The superiority of the Chinese in these new test results is very big and very serious. And it is trending bigger in a serious way compared to the results of the PISA tests done circa 2003.

For a one-page summary tabulation of the test scores of the participating countries see: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-snapshot-Volume-I-ENG.pdf

You'd better appreciate the results if you spent a bit of time answering some of the questions that were asked on this test (warning: some questions demand concentration to answer correctly): http://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/

Posted by: Parviziyi | Dec 4 2013 3:01 utc | 22

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/
As I said at #22, you can see some PISA test questions at the above link. The above link also shows what percentage of 15-year-old secondary school students in each country got the question correct. Here's an example, where the student has to write in the answer (not multiple choice):

Helen rode her bike from home to the river, which is 4 km away. It took her 9 minutes. She rode home using a shorter route of 3 km. This only took her 6 minutes. What was Helen's average speed, in km/h, for the trip to the river and back?

Percentage of students who got the answer right:
Shanghai-China 31%
Singapore 19%
Chinese Taipei 18%
Hong Kong-China 12%
Korea 12%
Japan 8%
Macao-China 8%
Switzerland 7%
Belgium 6%
Poland 5%
Germany 5%
New Zealand 5%
Netherlands 4%
Canada 4%
Australia 4%
Estonia 4%
Finland 4%
Vietnam 4%
Austria 3%
Czech Republic 3%
France 3%
Slovak Republic 3%
United Kingdom 3%
United States 2%
Israel 2%
Italy 2%
etc.....

Posted by: Parviziyi | Dec 4 2013 3:14 utc | 23

@Parviziyi

Yeah. But where is the Chinese or Koren "risk culture" or "impulsive imagination"?

You can have 10,000 brilliant electrical engineers. Not one of them will invent packet communication, cellular collision-detecting networks or the iPhone.

Americans? Yes. Iranians? Brazilians? Russians? Probably. Chinese? Very unlikely.

I hate the yank society, and world presence. But if you're gonna have a Jobs or Edison they will be either American, or someone who migrated towards America.

Posted by: Jeremiah | Dec 4 2013 3:41 utc | 24

"But if you're gonna have a Jobs or Edison they will be either American, or someone who migrated towards America"

Then what happens to the fruit of thier genius? The asians turn it into product, and sell it back to us.

Meanwhile, we turn out ten thousand Eddie Haskells, flipping burgers, for every one Edison, inventing new technology.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 4 2013 4:12 utc | 25

3+4 is 7, 9+6 is 15 min. so 7x60/15 or 7x4 is 28 km/hr. I cannot imagine that any decent 15 year old could not solve this. I would have thought the percentages would be a heck of lot higher everywhere. 100% from Taiwan and India (not on list). The data is very doubtful and not sure what the point is. Living in the US I see that it is still attracting the best minds from everywhere. And people with money still send their kids here and try to get citizenship. US may be going down but no one seems to be filling the potential void.

A second point that seems to be lost in this geo political debate is what role global warming will play in overwhelming all this. A few years back someone wrote an interesting book that looked at history and made the point that it wasn't the Napoleon's who change world history but rather significant climate events the precipitated changes. I haven't seen the latest results on the South pole melting rates but last time I checked they were 3x predicted rates. So in 10 years the loss of coastal land (think NewYork, Shanghai, LA, Tokyo, London etc.) may create much bigger headaches for all the players and be occupying their attention.

Posted by: Khalid | Dec 4 2013 4:14 utc | 26

"A second point that seems to be lost in this geo political debate is what role global warming will play in overwhelming all this"

See my post #17. Point being, our global environment is the elephant in the room, and theres no telling what direction he's gonna go, and who he's gonna trample, when he finally decides to stampede.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 4 2013 4:19 utc | 27

Not to worry. As Corporatists unite around the world, they'll find a niche for all us peons on the "Global Plantation". These many sham "Trade Agreements", will consolidate more power for the Multinational corporations. Money can buy any nation's complicity.

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/77133

Posted by: ben | Dec 4 2013 4:31 utc | 28

@27 I am referring to water level rising in the oceans. This is an equalizer. It will effect everyone's coastal areas, which worldwide account for 75% of the total world population. Current projections seem to talk of 50 years for this to become a issue but those are based on the South Pole melting at much lower rates than it actually is. This is not an unknown. This is a known and I think it is not 50 years out. At most 15 - 20 years out, becoming a major headache in less.

Posted by: Khalid | Dec 4 2013 4:35 utc | 29

Parviziyi @ 23.
This is a logic problem, and only incidentally to do with simple arithmetic (i.e. fingers and toes stuff). It's a test of student's understanding of the word "average." If the best result was a 31% pass rate, in China, then all this test proves is that students are being taught how NOT to think, all over the planet.

An average speed is a function of distance travelled /time. If Helen rode 7km in 15 minutes then her average speed during the 15 min (assuming 60 min = 1 hour) was 28 km/hr.

Helen was a strong, healthy and energetic young lady. Her 4k trip (out) was at 26.66 km/hr. Her 3k trip (home) was motivated by eagerness which helped her to cover it at 30.00 km/hr.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 4 2013 4:46 utc | 30

China only needs to do 3 basic things to trump the dumbass Yankees.
1. Improve and legitimise its global Media profile.
2. Popularise Anti-Americanism (assisted by the Yankees themselves).
3. Focus on stirring up anti-Yankee sentiments worldwide - starting with the German, Japanese, and Korean colonies; and extending to every country in which there's a US Military presence and/or undue Yankee political influence aimed at bribing politicians to ignore the will of pissed-off voters all over the world.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 4 2013 6:10 utc | 31

I think, PoA, that maybe the decline in US public education is purposeful. The US government is not run by stupid pieces of shit, but by typically 'clever' Trans National pieces of shit. Like the TNCs, the US TNG is concerned about the welfare of only a small percentage of the US, or any other, population. Themselves. The rest will be fast-food artists, or ... prisoners is good. A vibrant growth industry. And having people under lock and key since puberty allows strict control of their numbers as well.

It is not a competition between the USSA and the Plutocrats' Republic of China. Although unreconstructed members of the Wehrmacht have trouble understanding that. It is a competition between the Trans National Plutocrats and the rest of us, worldwide.

As far as staving off the US Wehrmacht ... I think that certainly the Chinese will not allow themselves to be provoked.

I think they ought to announce what everyone knows ... a foreign interloper is trying to divide and conquer East Asia. No need to let that happen. No need for anyone to conquer East Asia. Things are OK as they are, sovereign-nation-wise. Why not have one ADIZ, for example, with one set of rules and one common posting of arrivals and departures. Everything above board. Certainly the Chinese are smart enough to try that tack. Worst that happens ... they run it up the flagpole and no one salutes. This time. If at first you don't succeed ... the Plutocrats of East Asia will surely be able to accommodate themselves to the barbarian Plutes of the West. Once they all understand each other the contest will move to the exploitation of what's left of the world.

Posted by: john francis lee | Dec 4 2013 6:25 utc | 32

Dear john francis lee

There are a number of people here that are fairly knowledgeable in international political affairs. If you want to participate you might want to define a few terms.

For example:
TNC
USSA
Plutocrats Republic of China
Wehracht ( I know what that means but not in your context)
US Whrmacht??
ADIZ

Thanks for playing but try to think about what your audience already knows and doesn't know.

Posted by: ToivoS | Dec 4 2013 6:38 utc | 33

I'm sorry ...

TNC = Trans National Corporation(s)
USSA = United Security States of America
Plutocrats' Republic of China = Peoples' Republic Of China
Wehrmacht = the so-called 'defense' industries and command
US Wehrmacht = the so-called 'defense' industries and command of the USSA
ADIZ = a topical abbreviation for ... Air Defense Identification Zone

Trans National is the essential characteristic of 'business' these days. It's not US, or Chinese business interests but just plain, globalized ... transnational ... business interests, it seems to me. And to others. I certainly didn't make that one up.

USSA ... I did make that one up. Because the United States is now (or is still fast becoming?) totalitarian, as the USSR used infamously to be depicted in the USA of my youth.

Plutocrats' Republic is just my lame play on the now quaint term 'Peoples' Republic'. China has more billionaires now, if you count the 'invisible' Communist Party Card Carrying billionaires, than the USSA. So I'm told.

Wehrmacht is a term that struck terror into my heart as a child ... just as my own country, the USSA, does now, at the dawn now (hopefully) of my 'golden years'.

ADIZ is Yet Another Acronym ... in the news now because of Japan's attempt, no doubt with encouragement from the US Wehrmacht, or the Wehrmacht of the USSA, to grab some few islands and lots of hydrocarbons, presumably, across the abyssal depths from its own island arc archipelago, on the Chinese continental shelf.

Posted by: john francis lee | Dec 4 2013 8:21 utc | 34

I forgot to say glad you're back b. You cut right to the chase as usual. After I read your post I meant to post this one ... but I read all the other comments on the way down here. And abused your hospitality once again. Thanks for the moonlighting and the indulgence.

Posted by: john francis lee | Dec 4 2013 8:35 utc | 35

Hoarsewhisper & Khalid make the point about the test results at #23 above that the percentage of 15-year-olds who got the answer correct seems too low.

First of all, the particular quiz question at #23 was what they call a "Level 6" question (the hardest level). The percentage of correct 15-year-olds quoted at #23 is for ALL "Level 6" questions, and it is not for the particular "Level 6" question that is given at #23. I misread the thing earlier. I thought it was for the particular question, and I didn't pay enough attention. Probably other "Level 6" questions were harder, and that's why the percentages seem too low.

Secondly, to answer the particular question you need to see an algorithm or logical method. If you see one, it's easy, but otherwise you're fucked. Khalid had no problem seeing a good and simple algorithm, and he says "I cannot imagine that any decent 15 year old could not solve this." But I had a problem getting to an algorithm myself and so I can imagine that lots of other people would too.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Dec 4 2013 9:13 utc | 36

Question for Khalid: Helen was a strong, healthy and energetic young lady. Her 4k trip (out) was at 26.66 km/hr. Her 3k trip (home) was motivated by eagerness which helped her to cover it at 30.00 km/hr. What was Helen's average speed over the round trip of 7k? What's your method, given the info in that form? Suppose you're a student who calculates the info in that form. What do you do now? Abandon it, and go back to the original question to look for a better form? Or solve it in that form with its ugly multiplications and divisons, with no calculator?

Posted by: Parviziyi | Dec 4 2013 9:39 utc | 37

@27 I am referring to water level rising in the oceans. This is an equalizer. It will effect everyone's coastal areas, which worldwide account for 75% of the total world population. Current projections seem to talk of 50 years for this to become a issue but those are based on the South Pole melting at much lower rates than it actually is. This is not an unknown. This is a known and I think it is not 50 years out. At most 15 - 20 years out, becoming a major headache in less.

This is nonsense, and proves Parviziyi's point about TPB intentionally keeping people ignorant.

Despite TPB's attempts to encourage such ignorance, sea levels are by no means uniform. People seem to have an image of sea levels undergoing an inexorable steady rise, because of all the Gov't sponsored propaganda on this issue. But in fact Sea Levels frequently fluctuate and not only that but sea levels are not doing anything they haven't been doing for over 100yrs. There has been no increase of any significance in the rate sea level rise - currently that rate stands at approx 3mm per year. anyone that tells you different is either lying or misinformed.

see graph here for a good overview of sea level for the past century anyone can easily see that it fluctuates but there has been no change in the rate of rise. this basically disproves almost everything said in the quoted text above.

As for the statement that the Antarctic is melting - that's just total and utter bullshit - Bullshit of the worst kind too, easily proven false.

Sea levels rose significantly after the last ice age, then they fell during the Little Ice Age.
One can in fact simply intuit that sea level fell during the LIA because Roman Empire and Medieval port cities are now miles from the Mediterranean, This is proof that sea levels actually fell during the Little Ice Age.

Since the Little Ice Age ended around 1850 sea levels have been rising again - which is exactly what one would expect after the ending of something with the words "Ice" and "Age" in it name.

In 1066, nearly 1000 yrs ago, William the Conqueror defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. When William landed, he occupied an old Roman fort now known as Pevensey Castle, which at the time was located on a small island in a harbour on England’s south coast. Pevensey Castle is now a mile from the coast – proof of a much higher sea level fewer than 1000 years ago.

Since the Little Ice Age ended about 160 years ago, tide gages show that sea level has risen at a steady rate – with no correlation to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Posted by: foff | Dec 4 2013 10:03 utc | 38

i hear that the Chinese have a saying

Let the Barbarians fight amongst themselves,
while we look down from the mountains

Chinese cant possibly profit from any conflict
not even saber-rattling.

Posted by: chris m | Dec 4 2013 10:57 utc | 39

I agree, Chris M. The most successful armies are those that don't have to fight wars and that's China at the moment. China just has to sit back and watch the US defeat itself by spending itself to death and wasting its youth on foreign picnics that end badly. China's military is also smart enough to have its fingers in many commercial enterprises.

Posted by: Cynthia | Dec 4 2013 12:59 utc | 40

Is it wrong for me to count on another "Spanish flue" to mess up all grand plans?
At the end one must not forget how low (previously "great") societies can fall (Europe after the Romans, or the middle east after the Europeans), the only question is how can the China stop itself being dragged down by the US bubble? (and will they be "kind" enough to save Europe from the middle ages 2.0?)

Posted by: simon | Dec 4 2013 14:39 utc | 41

John francis lee is onto something with his Plutocrats Republic of China.
There are lots of billionaires in China and their (spoilt rich brat) offspring are a law unto themselves. In a generation or so these insular brats, born in ivory towers, will be the core of a 1% every bit as ruthless, scheming and supremicist as the West's 1%. So unless China challenges the West in less than 10 years from now, China's 1% will be in charge, egalitarian dreams will be bbq-ed, and China's poor will start getting noticably poorer.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 4 2013 15:18 utc | 42

"One can in fact simply intuit that sea level fell during the LIA because Roman Empire and Medieval port cities are now miles from the Mediterranean, This is proof that sea levels actually fell during the Little Ice Age."
One could "intuit" that were the only explanation to be found in comparative sea levels.
That however is not the case, is it? In fact the more obvious explanation is that the rivers have formed deltas from silt. There are, of course, other explanations too, most of them well within the range of the 31% of Chinese students capable of using elementary logic.
Using foff's arguments the disappearance, under water, of several medieaval East Anglian towns would demonstrate an alarming rise in sea levels. But that would be fallacious reasoning. Which, allied to mere assertions and the stun grenades of abuse and insults seems to characterise the argument of those who deny the obvious fact of climate changes consequent on the enormous increase in fossil fuel use since 1750.

Jeremiah @24. I think that you are wrong. The great advantage that the US has enjoyed in the C20th was its capital advantage. Most of those who developed the Atom Bomb, for example, were foreigners, working from the basic research done in non-American labs earlier in the century. What the US government could do, and no other government was able or willing to do, was to invest vast sums in the Manhattan Project.
In fact while the US until recently had a very good educational system at all three levels which allowed bright and ambitious children from poor families to go to places such as Wisconsin and Berkeley. Most of the easily accessible public universities have now become very expensive, the poor can only enter them on scholarships which tend to favour conventional thinkers. The easiest way of getting a University Education in the US today is probably, though I know very little about it, through the factories run by for profit corporations. Whether their degrees are worth anything is problematic.
The rest of the educational system appears to be declining rapidly, as it is in Britain. The ideology of testing and back to basics promoted by ignorant authoritarians is tolerated by capitalists because they now fear a bright critical population more than they desire innovative, ingenious employees. This is what happens under the rule of rentiers.

Posted by: bevin | Dec 4 2013 15:21 utc | 43

When you adjust for differing wage levels between China and the US, it becomes clear that China is spending about as much on military research and hardware as the US. And don't forget that they are smart enough not to fritter away trillions fighting ridiculous wars (killing defenseless peasants) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and now Africa.

But if projecting power world wide means frittering away trillions of dollars in foreign adventures that yield no gain or increase in security, then the US is indeed the champ.

Posted by: Cynthia | Dec 4 2013 15:31 utc | 44

Here we are foff old friend:
http://www.newscientist.com/special/drowned-cities-myths-secrets-of-the-deep

Posted by: bevin | Dec 4 2013 15:44 utc | 45

@45

Yes confirmation of exactly what I have been saying. Thanks for confirming it, even if that was not your intention.

The sea levels fluctuate. They simply rise and fall, just as they have done for Millennia. And as I said earlier the current rate of change has been pretty steady since the end of the Little Ice Age. No increase, of any significance, in the rate-of-change in that time period.

All without any input from humans whatsoever

Here's an easily understood graph of Sea Level rate of Change compared to Solar Cycles for the last 100yrs or so. Doesn't confirm anything but it's a much better fit correlation-wise than the silly CO2-Boogy-man the Climabots rant about

Posted by: foff | Dec 4 2013 16:34 utc | 46

Andre Gunder Frank once quipped that the only thing to fear about a rising China is America’s response to it

http://tinyurl.com/n7evbhd

Posted by: denk | Dec 4 2013 16:49 utc | 47

thought provoking, some might find it controversial.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/rise-of-china-and-pragmatic-marxism-an-interview-40312/

Posted by: denk | Dec 4 2013 16:52 utc | 48

.
consequent on the enormous increase in fossil fuel use since 1750.

wonderful sleight of hand - bevin is trying to connect the ending of the Little Ice Age (circa 1850) with events from 100 years before. Without any evidence whatsoever. Of course he neglects to inform us, sing his little theory, if humans are the cause of the ending of the little Ice Age, then what caused it in the first place? And what caused the Medieval Warming Period which preceded it? Too many horses?

Using foff's arguments the disappearance, under water, of several "medieaval" East Anglian towns would demonstrate an alarming rise in sea levels.

People that actually take the time to read up on this stuff realise pretty soon that sea levels are by no means uniform - all over the globe at any given time, the sea-levels are both rising and falling, in different locations.

For example Scientist John Daly, now deceased, ran a website which had images of

The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the `Isle of the Dead', Tasmania.

According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004.
Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre. © John L. Daly.
If the benchmark is difficult to see, try these.

Which kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the "Sea rise gonna kill us all" memes the Climabots like to indulge in

Posted by: foff | Dec 4 2013 16:55 utc | 49

Blaming changes in sea levels on use of coal may be convenient for those peddling the fictions that bevin peddles, but it just a convenient fiction with no evidence, only loud repetitive assertion, to back it up

Posted by: foff | Dec 4 2013 17:06 utc | 50

I am not going to get drawn into your nonsensical discussions foff, but this is a fair indication not of my sleight of hand but of yours:
"wonderful sleight of hand - bevin is trying to connect the ending of the Little Ice Age (circa 1850) with events from 100 years before."

I make no such connections. I am pointing out, what I suspect that even such an idiot as yourself would hesitate to deny, that, since 1750, or for that matter 1850, there has been an immense increase in the exploitation and use of fossil fuels. I'm surprised that a fan of the Oil and Gas industry would not know that. Or would even pretend not to.

Similarly I do not for a moment suggest that the disappearance of Dunwich, for example, had anything to do with climate change. It was you who introduced that canard by suggesting that the retreat of ports inland was evidence of a fall in sea levels.
The thing is, foff, if you are going to lie remember what you have said.
And that is your ration of troll feed for the moment.

Posted by: bevin | Dec 4 2013 17:26 utc | 51

For a guy that complains about insults you sure are displaying a hella lot of your usual hypocritical behaviour in your latest comment

Posted by: foff | Dec 4 2013 17:43 utc | 52

And despite your claims to the contrary you clearly were trying to connect sea-level changes (as a result of Global Warming) with increased use of coal % oil etc. It's on this page in clear print -

the obvious fact of climate changes consequent on the enormous increase in fossil fuel use since 1750.
so why you even bother to deny it is strange. People are not blind, muuch as you'd like to pretend they are. Accusing others of lying while lying yourself is pretty rich, even from you.

The IPCC says that post 1950 is when MAN began to have a stronger / discernible effect on the climate / global warming.

But overall Global sea level has been rising since 1850.

The onus is on the Climabots to demonstrate human responsibility.

There is no solid evidence of acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, despite claims to the contrary by Climabots.

But there is clear evidence of acceleration in use of fuels like coal and Oil since that time. So simply claiming that the two are linked seems at best to be misguided, and at worst an outright fabrication.

Posted by: foff | Dec 4 2013 17:53 utc | 53

Paper March 25, 2011

Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia

All records from the Atlantic coast of North America, Gulf of Mexico, and New Zealand (23) show stable or falling sea level between AD 1400 and 1900 at the time of the Little Ice Age. A record from Connecticut (6) developed using salt-marsh plant macrofossils showed stable sea level between AD 1300 and 1800 (Fig. 3). The record from Maine (24) is inconclusive due to large uncertainties. In the Mediterranean Sea, archaeological evidence from Roman fish ponds in Italy located sea level 2000 y ago (50 BC to AD 100) at 0.13 m below present (25). In Israel, archaeological evidence compiled from coastal wells showed falling or stable sea level between AD 100 and 900 (26), including sea level above present from AD 300 to 700. There is some evidence for a 1 m sea-level oscillation at AD 1000. In the Cook Islands (far-field region), reconstructions from coral microatolls proposed falling sea level over the last 2000 y, including two low stands in the last 400 y separated by a high stand at AD 1750 indicating sea-leveloscilla-tions of up to 0.6 m (27),

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.full.pdf

—————————-

American Meteorological Society – Volume 26, Issue 13 (July 2013)

Abstract

Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?


………..The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semiempirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of the authors’ closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the twentieth century.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

Posted by: foff | Dec 4 2013 17:56 utc | 54

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

and here's another one - this one concludes a possible deceleration in rate of change over last 80yrs

Abstract 2011
CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records.

The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less
than the +0.07 to +0.28mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf(2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al.(2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years

Posted by: foff | Dec 4 2013 18:06 utc | 55

Why is a powerful China more scary to countries in the region than a powerful US? The US dominates those countries and to their detriment, like for example, the Plaza Accords where the Us forced Japan to tank their economy.

In fact, the region's countries should look at US military capabilities and it's warmongering political elite and war-mongering press and be scared shitless.

Posted by: ess emm | Dec 4 2013 21:42 utc | 56

If the Chinese are smart, they will avoid the mistakes the Germans made in getting involved in a direct conflict with the British through a proxy during WWI. If the Germans had been content to just let economic and technological trends that had been in place since the 1880s, they would have been in the driver's seat eventually in Europe.

The Chinese are in a very similar position right now with the US, especially in regards to US naval strength. Seemingly overwhelmingly dominant on paper, but the gap is less than perceived, especially if the US Navy is forced to operate within 200-300 miles of the Chinese coat.

The Chinese should keep doing what they have been doing, locking up hard assets through financing and friendly development terms, while avoiding the US mistake of direct military involvement and expense of foreign military bases. It allows the US to project unprecedented global military power, but only as long as it can afford to. Sooner than later in the best future this wont be the case.

US military is already hollowing out due to the epic levels of cronyism in the contracting and procurement system, but the real thing that will sink it will be the legacy costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, thanks to Bush and the imbecile neocons.

China just has to sit back, play conservatively, and not be goaded into foolish rhetoric, or even worse, a direct military conflict with the US.

Posted by: Cynthia | Dec 4 2013 22:08 utc | 57

Although China has opposed the US designs in Syria and there's some hacking, they have endorsed the existing American world order.

b, perhaps China could prevent the pivot if she went even further, and championed a peaceful world order after America voluntarily relinquishes her hegemony. Her best bet to prove her benign intentions would be to bring about the peaceful de-nuclearization of North Korea.

Posted by: ess emm | Dec 5 2013 2:47 utc | 58

@57: My history isn't strong in this area and so the following will be based on some threadbare generalizations, but your point about the Germans is well taken. The problem though, it seems to me, is that - like the Japanese - they had to secure foreign resources in order for the "economic trends" to continue which the US/UK were intent on preventing. And just as occurred then, we now see the US attempt to maneuver itself into position to block China's access to the vital resources in the Middle East and in Africa.

Of course both sides know this. Frighteningly, the US has no other pillar to prop up its global strategy except for its military power. So China, though it must avoid a scenario of direct confrontation that the Germans found themselves in in 1914 (indeed, such a confrontation has the potential to be "the war to end all wars" - though only because it could portent the very end of humanity itself), will unfortunately likely be forced to resort to some sorts of military actions to secure those resources should the United States obstinately hold on to its position of global hegemon.


....

And a Climate Change skeptic to boot! Of course foff may well be our old friend "hmm..." but if he isn't - isn't it fascinating the ideological consistency of the trolls that visit MoA?

It is certainly remarkable, the similarity in both the tactics and the topics.

Posted by: guest77 | Dec 5 2013 3:15 utc | 59

China will probably want a war with japan just about now, since its housing bubble may burst at any time

Posted by: mir | Dec 5 2013 20:52 utc | 60

China has too many levers from a billion people to a trillion dollars of U.S. treasury bills to a thousand atomic weapons and ICBMs. Only a crazy American President would go to war with it. The pivot to Asia is senseless. Spend the money in North America.

The USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because it could and the White House was infested with war mongers who were given the go ahead by 9/11. This year, as soon as nuclear armed Russia became involved, the USA immediately backed away from bombing Syria.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Dec 6 2013 0:23 utc | 61

as if we need more proof who's behind japan's remilitarism..
http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/12/07/japan-has-fallen-back-into-fascism-after-68-years-us-controls-a-good-deal-of-japanese-policy/

but the msm has been crying them hoarse about china being japan circa 1930 !
hell, the ft just issue a warning to china, dont repeat the mistake of nazi germany E
hehehe....

*********

mir 60

great insight !
the war street journal can make use of talents like u.

Posted by: denk | Dec 7 2013 7:37 utc | 62

@37 Sorry I did not check back and perhaps this is a bit late. I was merely trying to point out that those percents seem very low especially for Taiwan and India being absent is also curious. The problem may be typical or not I cannot say and yes it can give some people difficulty if one has not being doing these type of problems for a while but students, especially from the above mentioned countries really practice these and are quite adept at them.
You have stated the same problem differently and again it may stump some but not those who practice these. 26.66 is 26 2/3 or 80/3. So for the first leg it is 4km x 60 min/hr x 3/80 hr/km = 9 min. The second leg is easier calculate and again we have 7km and 15 min and we get 28 km/hr. Like I said if you are practicing these it isn't difficult. Doesn't make one smarter just more used to solving such problems.

At the risk of stirring an unnecessary debate regarding rising sea levels. This can be decoupled from global warming. If you add water to a bowl the level will rise, that is just how it is. The South Pole has a huge store of water in its ice sheets and they are melting (at 3x the initially predicted rates; so the rate of melting is increasing) When South Pole has completely melted there will be a whole lot of additional water in the oceans and the level will rise. What is the history of the past 100 or 500 years is irrelevant. The South Pole has not melted in those times. My personal view is that conservatively we will see a 3 - 5 meter rise within 10 years from now ( a 1 - 1.5 m rise within 5 years). This is a large enough rise that it will cause serious challenges. The prediction is for the waters to rise over 20 meters in 50 years and I think that it will be within 25 years. This is not long from now and, if it happens, it will be a game changer. We won't have time for power politics.

Posted by: Khalid | Dec 7 2013 7:39 utc | 63

A real military rivalry between China and the US isn't in the cards, for the simple reason that neither country has the resources to support it.

Mearsheimer's nonsense re: "The US is now by far the most powerful state on the planet" reeks of hardcore neocon masturbatory fantasies circa 2000. Before "the greatest fighting force in the history of the world" failed, in spite of 10 years, over $1 trillion, and over 100 000 dead Iraqis, to defeat what the Pentagon insisted were no more than 20 000 lightly armed insurgents. The fact there are still deadenders peddling this tripe just shows how resistant the mainstream American foreign policy establishment is to joining the reality based community. And that's before we even get into the social tensions inherent in a Third World level of income distribution, the lack of an industrial base capable of supporting a major military effort, crumbling infrastructure, an education system on the verge of collapse, and the rest of it.

But the counter narrative about how China is about to usurp what Washington insiders assume is America's divinely ordained place in the hierarchy of nations is equally misguided. China is a country beset with massive political, economic and environmental liabilities, the dimensions of both Western and Chinese leaders remain largely in denial about - the West because they need Chinese consumption to underwrite growth, and the Chinese because admitting the extent of the fix they are in would be tatamount to admitting that the whole rationale for the Communist Party's monopoly on power is based on a lie.

So the most likely outcome is not an epic struggle for mastery between two titans but progressive stagnation and decline (already well advanced in both countries' political and economic institutions) in which both countries are far too preoccupied with their own ever mounting domestic problems to engage in foreign policy adventurism.

Unless, of course, elites in either or both countries decide that such adventurism would a great way to distract the plebs from all the misery on the home front...

Posted by: Lexington | Dec 7 2013 9:16 utc | 64

My personal view is that conservatively we will see a 3 - 5 meter rise within 10 years from now ( a 1 - 1.5 m rise within 5 years). This is a large enough rise that it will cause serious challenges. The prediction is for the waters to rise over 20 meters in 50 years and I think that it will be within 25 years....
Posted by: Khalid | Dec 7, 2013 2:39:35 AM | 63

With due respect...
These numbers are unnecessarily alarmist and demonstrably wrong.
You could check them yourself. The total quantity of land-based ice has been known for many years. The % of the Earth's surface covered by oceans is also known. It is thus possible to reverse-engineer any given sea-level rise and convert it to cubic kilometres of ice. NASA used to have a lot of this data (and much, much more) on its website. Even in the worst imaginable warming scenario it would be IMPOSSIBLE for enough ice to raise sea levels by 1 metre to melt in fewer than 25 years. You need to go back to the drawing board and gather your own data and do some calculations of your own.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 7 2013 12:23 utc | 65

From #65 (demonstrably wrong, cont).
Taking a 1m rise in 5 years as a starting point:
There are 40 inches in a metre. For sea levels to rise 40" in 5 years there would have to be a mean rate of rise of 8" per year.
The current best/worst annual measured rise rate is circa 1/8" per year - and not predictably consistent.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 7 2013 13:20 utc | 66

@65/66. I had to read what you wrote a few time. It seems you are not doubting that if all the ice in the world melted the ocean waters would rise by, as most sites on the subject say, upto 200ft (about 60 meters). Initially I thought you were saying even if all the ice melted it will not rise more than a meter. What you are doubting is that it will not take place. Well I hope you are right. I am extrapolating from data. Just one additional comment. The melting would not be a linear process. The more ice melts the faster the rest will melt. And out consumption patterns globally are only speeding things up.

Posted by: Khalid | Dec 7 2013 22:31 utc | 67

*A real military rivalry between China and the US isn't in the cards, for the simple reason that neither country has the resources to support it.*

u can bet ur farm china wont initiate hostility with murikka, what sane person would pick fight with a 2000 lbs gorilla running amok ?
but thats exactly what the msm want u to believe tho !.

r the crazies in washington dc mad enough to attack china ?
well , they sure r prepping for it. !

http://space4peace.blogspot.sg/2013/04/dont-cry.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-01-071113.html

http://space4peace.blogspot.sg/2013/10/stealth-destroyer-launch-this-friday.html

Posted by: denk | Dec 8 2013 4:57 utc | 68

Lexington 64
*Unless, of course, elites in either or both countries decide that such adventurism would a great way to distract the plebs from all the misery on the home front...*

china isnt in the tradition of starting a war to *distract the plebs*.
zero, none, nada, zilch.

neither is murikka.
it knew it's destiny from day one...
Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge , 1895
*We have a record of conquest, colonization and expansion unequaled by any people in the Nineteenth century. We are not about to be curbed now.*

wapo editorial, 1898
*We are face-to-face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth*

the rest is history.......

http://tinyurl.com/mj4gc56

Posted by: denk | Dec 8 2013 5:41 utc | 69

Khalid @ 67.
Apologies for my #65. It is a jumble of indirectly relevant factoids. My #66 directly addresses your (far-fetched) claims by drawing attention to the FACT that current implied rates of sea-level rise are only 1/64th of the rate required for your nightmarish dreams to come true.

I am confident, however, as I said in #65, that it is impossible for sufficient ice to melt to raise sea levels by 1 metre in fewer than 25 years. It takes a lot of heat to melt a lot of ice and, because ice is a good insulator, only the outer surface of a large body of ice can melt due to transfer of heat from the atmosphere.

If you're looking for a shorter-term threat around which to construct a beat-up, small increases in atmospheric temperature have the potential to increase the overall moisture content of the atmosphere and, thereby, the number and severity of storms and cyclones. Unlike ice melting, which will take a long time, increased cyclonic activity can be triggered by a warmer-than-average month, in more locations than 'normal'.

If warming continues, the increase in destructive weather patterns will become obvious, and inconvenient, long before rising sea-levels become a serious global cause for concern.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 9 2013 3:15 utc | 70

@70 Thanks. I stand corrected. Looks like I had not read something correctly. Reminder to do my homework better!

Posted by: Khalid | Dec 10 2013 0:58 utc | 71

i hear japan just complain to the *international community* [1] about china's adiz [sic]
there was a time when chutzpah is the prerogative of the muricuns,
but these days, the japanese r giving their masters a good run for their money
[2 ]!
well, when u lie down with dogs....

just look at the sheer obscene size of that jap adiz !
had the map shown the full size of china, the contrast would be even more stark !
http://tinyurl.com/kyxbv8d


make way, muricun exceptionism !

[1]
for the uninitiated, these days when they say *ic*, what they mean is the anglophone five.
[2]
watch out, uncle sham.
they say karma is a bitch !

Posted by: denk | Dec 15 2013 4:08 utc | 72

after executing his china friendly uncle, kim is recalling nk to leave china. [1]
nk could turn any moment now, ala myanmar, iran.
china better get ready for it.

its anybody's guess what the muricuns told kim n co in those secret meetings, [2]

*do u want a pot of gold or carpet bombing ? [afgan]

*we can bomb u back to stone age. [pak]

*u wanna with me or ghadaffi ? [myanmar]


[1]
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/14/north-korea-tells-its-citizens-in-china-to-return-home-as-a-show-of-loyalty/

[2]
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/02/withheld-intelligence-shows-mistrust-between-allies.html

Posted by: denk | Dec 15 2013 6:45 utc | 73

The US is now by far the most powerful state on the planet, and it is also the most powerful state in East Asia.

Mearsheimer has shown expertise and bravery a while ago. But then it was to do with his area of expertise. This (see quoted idiocy) however is - obviously - way outside his expertise. Also it should be noted that then and now Mearsheimer suffered from mental issues almost every zamerican suffers, namely a delusional and irrational perception of zusa and its capabilities.

What are the facts?

- zusa, although breaking pretty every international law and acting with unlimited brutality, lost all the wars it started since decades.
- zusa is financially broken to the point that even the cooperation of its minions and presstitues can't cover it up. Millions and millions of job- and often even homeless poverty stricken zamericans are striking evidence to that.
- zusa is being more and more evidently and overtly dominated and even humiliated by real powers like Russia and China.

As for the question how China will react to zusas pivot idiocy or, worse, to military provocations or actions by zusa and its slave-satellites (jap, sk, et al.) we need not speculate but can simply find the answer in recent reality: During an exercise with Chinas aircraft carrier and some escorting ships zusa tried its "when the zus navy comes even light houses have to give way" stance by having a zus destroyer steaming directly towards the Chinese naval group. Well, they got their response and it was clear beyond any doubt - some Chinese vessels turned towards the zus destroyer and de facto threatened to ram it, pure and simple.
As we now know, there was a clear and unmistakeable zus reaction: the zus vessel caved in and changed course so as to give free way to the Chinese vessels.

*This* is the reality - and not zamerican "supremacy" and "undisputed superpower" wet dreams. The Chinese responded to the zus dominance attempt and the zus retreated.

Will there be a war between China and zusa?

Quite probably not. For a simple reason: Zusa can't afford it; neither financially nor militarily.

In fact, *if* there were a war it wouldn't be because zusa wished and began it but because zusa miscalculated (once more) and China (and others) came to consider a war to destroy zusa once and for all as cheaper and more attractive than taking more zamerican sh*t, lies, and betrayal.

Who'd win a war if one were to come?

China and Russia. No buts, no ifs.
Again, reality vs. zusa bullsh*t. zusas air defense is next to worthless, their navy (ecept their new lcs which are worthless toys) is still formidable but extremely vulnerable to attacks by modern Russian and Chinese high-tech missiles, and zusas air force is simply either outdated or worthless, unreliable toys. If if (which can be doubted) Russia would decide not to (openly and overtly) engage on Chinas side, zusa would return so much weakened and bruised that not even their minions could keep the "superpower" fairy tale alive.

Those with doubt about Chinas mil. capabilities should look up the DF21 missile. And, btw, Chinas space missions aren't based in scientific interest only, they also were to develop (and nowadays to prove) Chinas capability to de facto blind and cripple the zus military by shoting their satellites out of the sky.
Last but not least China is looking back at thousands of years of a high culture while zusa basically has to offer what little cheeseburgers and football hold in terms of culture.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Dec 18 2013 23:24 utc | 74

The US is now by far the most powerful state on the planet, and it is also the most powerful state in East Asia.

Mearsheimer has shown expertise and bravery a while ago. But then it was to do with his area of expertise. This (see quoted idiocy) however is - obviously - way outside his expertise. Also it should be noted that then and now Mearsheimer suffered from mental issues almost every zamerican suffers, namely a delusional and irrational perception of zusa and its capabilities.

What are the facts?

- zusa, although breaking pretty every international law and acting with unlimited brutality, lost all the wars it started since decades.
- zusa is financially broken to the point that even the cooperation of its minions and presstitues can't cover it up. Millions and millions of job- and often even homeless poverty stricken zamericans are striking evidence to that.
- zusa is being more and more evidently and overtly dominated and even humiliated by real powers like Russia and China.

As for the question how China will react to zusas pivot idiocy or, worse, to military provocations or actions by zusa and its slave-satellites (jap, sk, et al.) we need not speculate but can simply find the answer in recent reality: During an exercise with Chinas aircraft carrier and some escorting ships zusa tried its "when the zus navy comes even light houses have to give way" stance by having a zus destroyer steaming directly towards the Chinese naval group. Well, they got their response and it was clear beyond any doubt - some Chinese vessels turned towards the zus destroyer and de facto threatened to ram it, pure and simple.
As we now know, there was a clear and unmistakeable zus reaction: the zus vessel caved in and changed course so as to give free way to the Chinese vessels.

*This* is the reality - and not zamerican "supremacy" and "undisputed superpower" wet dreams. The Chinese responded to the zus dominance attempt and the zus retreated.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Dec 18 2013 23:32 utc | 75

(part 2)

Will there be a war between China and zusa?

Quite probably not. For a simple reason: Zusa can't afford it; neither financially nor militarily.

In fact, *if* there were a war it wouldn't be because zusa wished and began it but because zusa miscalculated (once more) and China (and others) came to consider a war to destroy zusa once and for all as cheaper and more attractive than taking more zamerican sh*t, lies, and betrayal.

Who'd win a war if one were to come?

China and Russia. No buts, no ifs.
Again, reality vs. zusa bullsh*t. zusas air defense is next to worthless, their navy (ecept their new lcs which are worthless toys) is still formidable but extremely vulnerable to attacks by modern Russian and Chinese high-tech missiles, and zusas air force is simply either outdated or worthless, unreliable toys. If if (which can be doubted) Russia would decide not to (openly and overtly) engage on Chinas side, zusa would return so much weakened and bruised that not even their minions could keep the "superpower" fairy tale alive.

Those with doubt about Chinas mil. capabilities should look up the DF21 missile. And, btw, Chinas space missions aren't based in scientific interest only, they also were to develop (and nowadays to prove) Chinas capability to de facto blind and cripple the zus military by shoting their satellites out of the sky.
Last but not least China is looking back at thousands of years of a high culture while zusa basically has to offer what little cheeseburgers and football hold in terms of culture.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Dec 18 2013 23:33 utc | 76

nsa is like the boy who cries wolf once too often,
seems nobody believe their bs now :-0
http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-says-foiled-china-cyber-plot-2013-12#comments

Posted by: denk | Dec 21 2013 16:23 utc | 78

#65

    The prediction is for the waters to rise over 20 meters in 50 years and I think that it will be within 25 years.

whoever "predicted" that (and I suspect it was James Hanson) is , frankly, full of shit.

Even the Propagandists at the IPCC think such "predictions" regarding GMSLR, over such a small time-frame, are bullshit

Chalk up another "win" for TPB that people out there actually go around believing such ignorant nonsense.

anyone claiming "20 meter rise in 25 yrs" is thoroughly delusional

Posted by: foff | Dec 21 2013 16:45 utc | 79

    Initially I thought you were saying even if all the ice melted it will not rise more than a meter. What you are doubting is that it will not take place. Well I hope you are right. I am extrapolating from data.

O'Rly? What "DATA" are you "extrapolating" from ?

AFAIK there is NO DATA to support such nonsense

Posted by: foff | Dec 21 2013 16:48 utc | 80

the media r saturating bombing us with china's *provocative*, *destabilising* *tension escalating * adiz. [sic]
to get some perspective here's a sample of muricuns provocations at china's doorstep, just the tip of iceberg mind u !

yinhe hijack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinhe_incident

hainan spy plane
http://www.g2mil.com/May2001.htm

impeccable spy ship
http://info.japantimes.co.jp/text/rc20100805a1.html

cowpens provocateur
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37159.htm#idc-cover

**************************


taunting china
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0715-04.htm


who is taunting whom across the Taiwan Strait,
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j121302.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200601/19/eng20060119_236755.html

america has helped us in our fight against terrorism,' said Mrs Arroyo. 'When the Abu Sayyaf emerged, I told the Americans I don't want the training to defend the Spratlys against the Chinese anymore - it's not relevant and it's not realistic
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=2768332


http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-south-korea-military-exercise-an-act-of-provocation-directed-against-china

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/world/asia/us-and-philippines-start-training-exercise.html?_r=0

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/us-japan-and-s-korea-to/835106.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/03/us-japan-joint-military-exercise

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/05/296603/us-philippines-kick-off-joint-drill/


http://www.japan-press.co.jp/modules/news/index.php?id=6522

http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/Video.aspx?videoid=310241

Posted by: denk | Dec 23 2013 2:57 utc | 81

The comments to this entry are closed.