China vs Tibet Monks

[Bloodclanorcs]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/tibet-monks-disrupt-tour-by-journalists/20080327073809990001

 

[Corwin]

It's the impact this might have on the Olympics that I'm concerned about!!

 

[txa1265]

Of course no one is taking too strong of a stand because of the massive economic power China wields ...

 

[V7]

Of course no one is taking too strong of a stand because of the massive economic power China wields ...

It would be nice if they were taking such a principled reasoned stand as greed but the truth is no one cares any more than they do about the Kurds, Basque, Chechnya, Darfur, catholic northern Irish, muslim sothern Thailand, your pick of any number of indeginious groups through the Americas and so on and on and on.

 

[magerette]

Very true. It's distant and therefore dismissible. The Tibetans have waited a long time to stage these protests at a time when the eye of the world is turned their way, but as you say V7, to most it's just another 2 minute newsbyte. I've read some of the Dalai Lama's works, and that any government on earth could consider him as advocating violence is beyond sad.

There's a real parallel to me between this and the way the Native Americans were divested of their land and their culture by force. That was a hundred years ago, but the fact of the matter is, no one intervened then for the Sioux, the Commanche, the Pima etc and I don't know who will intervene for the Tibetans now.

 

[Corwin]

Money talks and the Chinese have more than the Tibetans. Sad, but True!!

 

[txa1265]

... now if the Tibetans had some *OIL* ...

 

[Prime Junta]

... we'd have cause to feel a lot sorrier for them than we already do.

 

[Eliaures]

I give money to the Campaign for Tibet and have for many years. It would be nice to think that Tibet could gain it's freedom through organizations such as this, but unfortunately, the best I think I can hope for is that they soften some of the worst abuses of the Chinese towards Tibet.

 

[Pladio]

China isn't only a massive economic superpower, but also a military superpower. Not only that, Tibet has been under Chinese occupation for so long without anyone noticing that China know it's only a temporary issue. They'll calm down their stance a bit before the Olympics until a bit after and then they'll just start anew.

 

[V7]

Its a bit of a stretch to call it an occupation, Chineese soverignty over Tibet is generally recognised.

 

[Prime Junta]

China is hardly a military superpower (yet) -- it is a significant regional power, though. IMO the central question isn't even Tibet as such; it's the way the Chinese central government treats its national minorities in general. The Uighurs, for example, don't have as charismatic a spokesman as the Dalai Lama, but they're just about as badly oppressed.

 

[JemyM]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBcwAJZGXsk]Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream[/url], Ed McCurdy, 1950
Last night I had the strangest dream
I ever had before,
I dreamed the world had all agreed,
To put an end to war.

I dreamed there was a mighty room,
And the room was filled with men,
And the paper they were signing said
They’d never fight again.

And when the paper was alla signed,
And a million copies made,
They all joined hands and cirkled round,
And grateful prayers were made.

And the people on the street below
Were dancing ’round and ’round,
With swords and guns and uniforms
All scattered on the ground.

Last night I had the strangest dream
I ever had before,
I dreamed the world had all agreed
To put an end to war.

 

[dteowner]

China is hardly a military superpower (yet) -- it is a significant regional power, though. IMO the central question isn't even Tibet as such; it's the way the Chinese central government treats its national minorities in general. The Uighurs, for example, don't have as charismatic a spokesman as the Dalai Lama, but they're just about as badly oppressed.

Massive conventional forces backed by nuclear weapons...I don't see how you say they aren't a superpower yet. About the only thing they lack is an imposing navy and they're only a small step behind on aircraft. Those shortfalls are easily covered by sheer manpower. I suppose they aren't really equipped to wage a long-distance conventional war, but I'm not sure that's a requirement to get superpower status, is it?

Some researcher showed that, given growth rates at the time (a couple years ago), you could have the Chinese walk past you single-file and the parade would literally never end.

 

[Prime Junta]

Massive conventional forces backed by nuclear weapons...I don't see how you say they aren't a superpower yet. About the only thing they lack is an imposing navy and they're only a small step behind on aircraft. Those shortfalls are easily covered by sheer manpower. I suppose they aren't really equipped to wage a long-distance conventional war, but I'm not sure that's a requirement to get superpower status, is it?

Actually, IMO that's exactly the what's required for superpower status. Regional powers are capable of projecting military power over their own borders; great powers are capable of projecting it overseas, and superpowers are capable of projecting it overwhelmingly overseas. So, for example, that would make France, Britain, the USA, and Russia (now that they've got their military act together again) great powers, and China, Iran, Israel, and India regional powers. Examples of superpowers would be the USA from 1941 to 2003 or so, the USSR from 1948 or so to 1991, and Great Britain from the 1840's to 1945 or so. Superpower status is fairly transient; it rarely lasts over a century nowadays.

IOW, China is still two steps removed from being a superpower. I'm sure it could develop "great power" military capacity in another decade or so; beyond that the going would get tough, though -- it's as much a matter of circumstances as effort.

Some researcher showed that, given growth rates at the time (a couple years ago), you could have the Chinese walk past you single-file and the parade would literally never end.

Would that make India a superpower as well?

 

[Prime Junta]

PS. Check out this page: [ http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/eindex.htm ]. It has a nifty "population clock" for China. It ticks up a notch every few seconds. The birth counter ticks a bit faster, so if your single file was marching at a pace where one of them passed you every second, indeed you would never run out of Chinese. Although, of course, if all of them were marching, they wouldn't have any time to make new ones...

 

[dteowner]

Hmmm. I guess you're right. Although the nukes offer the ability to inflict extensive casualties at a tremendous distance, it might be too much to make that equate to a step up the regional/great/super ladder all by itself. Similar situation with the population point, although I would say that a billion Chinese with guns is a little different from a billion Indians with...ummm...a bunch of cows?

India has no legit military complex to speak of, so their ridiculous numbers don't rate for much.

 

[Remus]

Obviously, both China and India are big military power in Asia, and India doesn't left far behind in term of military build up and modernization. Still, it difficult what predict who will actually wins in reality if war broke up...

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp

 

[dteowner]

Interesting link, Remus, thanks.

 

[V7]

I think the nukes get overplayed a bit in China's case. They're currently an order of mangitude smaller than US and USSR for numbers and have even fewer launchers, certainly they don't come close to a MAD deterant force. If a war went nuclear a first strike could serously compromise their force and, even if they were able to launch the reach is limited.

Agreed with PJ as well that power projection is one of the defining components of being a superpower, and for that you really need a serous blue water navy, start worrying when they're building carrier battle groups like the US.