High-Tech Firms Worry About Taiwan-China Tensions 482
Andy Tai writes "This San Jose Mercury News story shows high tech companies in the Silicon Valley worry about a possible war between mainland China and Taiwan. Both play important roles in the computer industry and the U.S. depends on both to finance the federal budget deficits. Many businessmen hope that economic considerations will prevent both sides from marching down a self-destructive path."
Who here remembers... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who here remembers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute. Are there any non-Asian memory manufacturers?
non-asian memory manufacturer (Score:5, Informative)
The mojo is getting weaker (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The mojo is getting weaker (Score:3, Funny)
*Grammar Nazi*
I sense a disturbance in the force...
*Grammar Nazi*
Reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, hippies hope that love of peace will prevent both sides from marching down a self destructive path, and Slashdotters hope that considering the impact of a war on American technology consumers will prevent the war.
Pacifists, not hippies (Score:3, Insightful)
The hippie is a convenient straw man. The word has so many associations with shiftlessness and stupidity that even counterculture folks like Ken Kesey [charm.net] use it as a term of a abuse. But it's not fair to saddle every idealistic philosophy with the label. Especially the pacifists, who have been around for centuries, and even played a role in the founding and settlement of the U
Re:Pacifists, not hippies (Score:2)
Especially the pacifists, who have been around for centuries, and even played a role in the founding and settlement of the U.S.
Are those the same pacifists that tacitly permitted if not aided the genocide of Native Americans?
risks of outsourcing (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing isn't it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Amazing isn't it! (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone wave at Mr. Ashcroft!
Wrong. (Score:2)
You are talking out your ass. (Score:2)
While the USA doesn't have a perfect record, I have seen plenty of people on tv, on the internet and in print say negative things about this administration. And yes, quite a few of them where Muslim and/or Arabic. And none of them are in jail.
Re:You are talking out your ass. (Score:2)
Re:You are talking out your ass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously not everyone who disagrees with Pres. Bush is getting tossed into Gitmo, and it would be both an extension of the point and a fundamental fallacy to say so.
Which is why it's funny to say so
At the same time, when you lock people up for an indeterminate amount of time, deny them the right to seek legal counsel, and hold all hearings pertaining to their "crime" in secret.... you risk looking like you're running a police state.
Is Gitmo full of political prisoners of the Bush Administration? Of course not. Are most of the people there terrorists and other dangerous folk? Probably. Are we all safer and more secure with those people behind bars (or barbed wire as the case may be)? Definitely.
But are there also some people there who were wrongly imprisoned, who didn't do anything, and who are being denied their Constitutionally Protected rights to trial by jury, legal advice, and habeas corpus? Almost certainly.
In my mind, that single fact (or if you prefer, possibility) counters every possible argument, every possible benefit, and every considerable merit for keeping prisoners in the Gitmo facility and trying their cases in secret. These people have a right to defend themselves in a court of law in full view of the public. If we take that away how can we really say we're fighting to defend freedom anymore? How can we really say we're championing anything other than oppression and totalitarian rule?
Let these cases stand on their own merit. If the government has proof than let it be seen. Too many American lives have been sacrificed on the alter of freedom, too many of our nation's sons have died to hoist the banner of liberty, too many fathers have been cut down fighting a war for justice to throw away the values we hold so dear at this moment of crisis.
I could have posted all that, but I was going for the +5 funny. You people have no since of humor
Re:You are talking out your ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Geneva Convention(s), apply only to POWs and other captives taken during a war. Incidently, the United States has failed to declare war, both on Iraq and on Afghanistan. Conseuently, it is anyone's guess as to weather or not Geneva applies. Further, the United States has used this technicality to justify the conditions a
Re:Amazing isn't it! (Score:5, Insightful)
China has been enjoying a truly amazing rate of economic growth for quite some time. Although the government tends to exaggerate the figures, the true figures are still very good. The amount of new construction in places like Beijing and Shanghai is incredible. Even in the interior, places that didn't even have running water not that long ago are getting telephones and TVs. The per-capita GDP is currently about $4,400, which is already not that bad.
China's leaders are totalitarian, but they have absolutely no incentive to keep their population poor. The richer their people are, the richer they are, and the more powerful their country is. They are smart enough to realize this.
Re:Amazing isn't it! (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest challenge Chinese leaders face is growing the economy while maintaining political control. People with no running water and no electricity are too busy surviving to worry much about the politics of their country; people with DVD players and new cars to protect want responsive (and if at all possible, representative) leadership.
Re:Amazing isn't it! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Oh good (Score:5, Insightful)
And I'm not sure if you were being ironic with your "money is bad, think about the children" line, but note that in this case the point is that the lost revenue would actually be a deterrent for war. In other words, economic factors are actually helping to make the war less likely.
Re:Oh good (Score:2, Informative)
The difference here is that each time in the past the USA has made a point of letting China know that it would fight to stop an invasion of Taiwan. Things have changed, as seen in a recent GW Bush speech on the issue.
The problem with that damn invisible
Re:Oh good (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I dislike the guy, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Countries have no friends; they only have interests!" I find that to be almost a truism. I personally think USA WILL stop defending Taiwan in 30 or so years. Once China ramps up its nukes to US levels, and once China be
Re:Oh good (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please. Are you saying that whenever there's a mere potential of anything bad happening anywhere in the world we should all just stop and contemplate our navels until the problem goes away?
No, life goes on. People go about their business, as normally as possible, whatever the situation because that's what we do. A lot of Liberal whining about how evi
Re:Oh good (Score:2)
In short, the US has voiced its willingness to bomb the shit out of China over this matter several times.
On a historicaly corrective note... Mao's starvation of 60 (not 50) million in the Great Leap Forward was a lot less about maintaining his hold on power (anyone who can manage to starve 60 million people has plenty of that) but more about trying to jumpstart China's econ
Re:Oh good (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
Re:Oh good (Score:2)
That's a logical fallacy, and you embarass yourself by using it. You see, you are presenting only two choices where in fact more exist. It is perfectly possible to be neither. If you believe that someone who allows a bad thing to happen is as bad as the person who does it, then I wonder how it is you even own a computer? Shouldn't you have sold it and donated the money to the poor? Because, by your o
Re:Oh good (Score:2)
Could you tell me when I said I was free from blame, please?
Re:Oh good (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh good (Score:2)
Re:Oh good (Score:2)
Tibet
Shortages (Score:3, Insightful)
That would not necessarily be a bad thing. Probably help out domestic manufacturing.
Price Inflation would be very very bad (Score:3, Insightful)
The impact of war on this country would be none too pleasant. Goods shortages mean price rises means inflation means rising interest rates. The war would also disrupt Chinese purchases of American debt -- further driving up interest rates.
With higher interest rates would come debt
No foolin' (Score:3, Interesting)
It's funny... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's funny... (Score:3, Interesting)
History has shown that while not a perfect solution, intertwining economies is the single best method of preventing wars. A lot of Liberal hand-waving and bleating won't change that. See, you don't understand what profit is. Profit is what happens when person A produces something person B wants, and person B trades something person A wants for it. Profit is the surest guarantor of
Re:It's funny... (Score:3, Insightful)
Was it ever?
Looking back on history, I think the failure to avoid World War I, perhaps the most pointless conflict that has ever been waged, pretty well damns humankind.
Anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
If money keeps these morons from fighting, then I say hurrah for money.
Stability- Imports Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that many countries are expensive is because they are safe and stable.
The laws, workforce, international situation are all good, you are likely dealing with an expensive country.
If you go to some country that has "political risk" the costs will be lower to account for this, everyone who does business with such a country must account for this risk.
If you want a safe stable place to do business keep it in a stable country, Don't put it in a semi independant nation/state mess on the other side of the world.
Memory (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I wondered why Hong Kong banks didn't get together and go buy a small South American country, like Peru. Land is so expensive there that they're buying fill from mainland China to expand the island (with fiber optics and other necessary utilities built in as it goes).
If they had just bought Peru (or any other small, poor country) they could have done some terrific things.
Israel could do the same thing. Their neighbors would probably pay for the purchase. I'm certain they could even take the holy land with themselves. How many feet down? 6? load it onto freighters and ship it to wherever they bought. Bang, the mideast problems ends.
Huh? (Score:2)
buying a country (Score:4, Interesting)
An old adage in business: for enough money ANYTHING is for sale. Taiwan doesn't have to show up and say: How much for your lovely country, they could just start buying up real estate. Asian bankers have bucks and backing. It wouldn't take much to start developing Peru, or whatever other country was available.
Look, they might need some new laws regarding percentage ownership, but it's not like they couldn't buy political influence too. I'm also not talking about throwing out the old population, just buy, develop and move in.
If Peru doesn't want the obvious economic benefits, there are certainly other countries that would take the deal.
Nerves in Korea (and elsewhere) (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they'd fail, since the U.S. couldn't allow them to succeed. But the fighting would devestate Korea and place a nasty strain on U.S. military resources, which are already stretched. Let's see, that would leave two of the most productive economies in Asia (Taiwan and Korea) in utter ruins, with millions of unemployed. And the U.S., which is already spending gazillions it doesn't have, would be spending gazillions more. So economic hard times here, for a bunch of reasons.
And that's the best case scenario. It assumes the DPRK doesn't have more than a couple of nukes...
Re:Nerves in Korea (and elsewhere) (Score:2)
We're talking horribly rural land right next to some of the most highly developed urban land in the world. South Korea needs room and they'd pay the north big bucks for the development privlegd.
There would be some heavy social consequences (see East + West Germany) but North Korea is sitting on a ton of extremely valuable real estate
Re:You kids need a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Memory (Score:3, Interesting)
That only works when the people in the country you're buying land in have a VERY solid concept and implementation of property rights. South American governments tend to be a bit shaky about that. Even if you did buy up the land successfully, sent over enough citizens to be the majority, declared it "New Taiwan" or such, you'd still have to defend it from a bunch of neighbors who probably w
Serious Stuff!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Of course if they had emperor McBride, all they have to do is say that Taiwan is a derrivative work of mainland China and as such belongs to China. They can then proceed to charge $699 for each person who wishes to live in Taiwan.
Self-destruction of who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both economically and militarily, there won't be mutual self-destruction between mainland China and Taiwan. Instead, there will be one huge mammoth of a country squashing a football-field-sized other country.
And there won't be economic or military sanctions on China (the threat of which is what prevented it from harming Taiwan for so long) because now the US, the only country able to inflict any kind of sanctions on China, has vested interests in both countries.
The only thing China risks is reproachful looks at the UN for a while, then after everybody there is done looking really shocked, Taiwan will be history. Proof is, if the rest of the world had any kind of power against China's actions, Tibet would have been freed a long time ago.
In short: Taiwan's days are numbered.
Re:Self-destruction of who? (Score:2)
Taiwan does have nukes (last I heard, circa 20 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Launch those into Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and a few other choice locations, and while it's far from mutually assured destruction, it would set the Chinese economy back at least a decade and into chaos for a while.
Re:Self-destruction of who? (Score:2)
I have no doubt that using nuclear weapons would totally negate the last thing, and thereby allow China to just bomb taiwan.
Re:Self-destruction of who? (Score:2, Interesting)
Tibet and Taiwan aren't quite analogous. Here are a few differences:
Re:Self-destruction of who? (Score:4, Interesting)
China's saber-rattling is just bluster. They could probably gain air superiority and bomb everything into tiny pieces, but that kind of runs counter to their stated goal of reunification. They don't threaten a massive bombing campaign, they threaten invasion. They don't have what it takes to actually pull one off, though.
It already looks bad, now enter the external powers. Particularly the United States. The US has very strong treaties and military ties with Taiwan. We have not hesitated to send a carrier battle group into the area before when things heated up. China sells us things for cheap, but if the US failed to defend Taiwan after promising to do so, our alliances with the rest of the world wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on.
China's leaders may be overly powerful and overly willing to exercise that power, but they are rational. They know that their nice lives will be rather disrupted during a gigantic slug-fest involving China, Taiwan, and whatever US carrier battle groups and long-range bomber wings are able to make it to the party in time.
Taking all of this into account, I don't worry when I read these stories. Both sides are run by rational people. Rational people don't start wars they can't win for stupid reasons.
Re:Self-destruction of who? (Score:4, Insightful)
China has been doing a massive modernization of its military forces, and that includes its air force. Part of the problem with gauging their progress is that they are home-basing much of their military production. Even if their current fighters can barely match US fighters 2:1, a 3:1 edge still means less US planes will be in the air at the end of the engagement.
They don't need a navy to take back Taiwan. Taiwan doesn't have much of a navy either. And no way will they be able to spend to create a navy comparable to the US fleet. Its much cheaper to sink the US fleet (with missles), and then ship the troop transports across. (Oh yeah, don't forget the paratroop forces.)
The biggest dirty secret is that in order to have an effective military force, you have to use it. Its the only way to work out the kinks in strategic construction and tactics. China hasn't conducted a significant military operation since the early '80's, and that army got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese. If the Chinese have a truly wise military and party leadership, they wouldn't execute an invasion merely because they couldn't be sure the combined arms wouldn't shoot each other at a crucial point. I bet there's at least one Chinese general pretty bummed they didn't contribute a contingent force to Iraq.
As for counting on the US to meet its defense obligations to Taiwan, the Bush government has consistently talked through both sides of its mouth. I really have a problem believing that the US can stomach having one of their billion dollar carriers at the bottom of the sea over Taiwan. And trust me, if the Chinese can't sink a carrier group with ten thousand missles, they'll make sure one of them is nuke tipped.
No, I agree, China won't invade Taiwan because after they're victorious, they'd only have a smoking ruin to show for it. The party line is that with Chinese manufacturing power, Taiwan has to move its factories to the mainland to compete internationally, and in thirty years, they will have to accede to the mainland, or else the economic embargoes will pretty much ruin Taiwan. The problem is that there is a HEAVY nationalist streak in their party leadership, particularly the military. You cannot imagine the resentment they have towards the US government for telling them they can't "administer" their own province. It would be much like China telling the Bush administration they had to do a general vote recount for Florida for the 2000 election, but then actually having the power to make the recount happen.
It would be a mistake to believe war couldn't happen because of rational people in power. Remember, Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor. There were no hanging chads or Supreme Court in that election.
Re:Self-destruction of who? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah South Korea sounds like a safe bet. It's a good thing they're not near another country which has a lunatic for a leader.
Re:Self-destruction of who? (Score:3, Funny)
A little history... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/china/china-t
Re:A little history... (Score:3, Insightful)
First, we need to make clear about the population profile in modern day Taiwan. Only 1 % are aboriginal people (more similar to polynesian living around the Pacific islands), about
Taiwan and China (Score:5, Insightful)
But as I said before, a war between the two countries isn't likely. China knows the consequences of going into Taiwan; it would lead to American intervention and probably put an end to Chinese economic development and lucrative trade China does with the United States.
Re:Taiwan and China (Score:2)
Re:Taiwan and China (Score:2, Informative)
Would the USA want to lose it's lucrative trade with China? The USA will hurt itself if it applies sanctions on Chinese goo
Common sense has always prevailed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Chinese history (Score:2, Funny)
Also China was basically the world leader in science and technology for most of world history so once this little western imperialism era thingy is over China will be back on top, probably for a couple thousand more years.
how bout some perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
first, china simply can't go to war with taiwan. (oh sure, they can fire some missles, but then see down the list.) see, to cross 70 miles of the strait of formosa (taiwan strait) would be an undertaking that would make normandy and okinawa be minor ops. they don't have the 1) airforce to provide cover, 2) the navy to carry them over, 3) the ability to protect the invasion from being observed from satelites, which would give us and taiwan advanced notice, 4) the ability to hold and maintain a beachhead once there. it doesn't matter if you have one million, or 10 million, troops in an invasion. if you can't support them, they're targets.
second, china built the three gorges dam. they have so much capital (even in communist china!!) tied up in it, it generates such a large portionof power. and, it is impssible to defend from air ro missile attack. we could take it out in about 10 minutes. and they're fscking toast.
third, china is so dependent upon the US trade for an in flux of capital and hard currency. anything more than sabre rattling, and we shut that off, they take a shit. they are fscked.
i could go on further. the cuyrrent regime is on its last legs. this is an in ternal power struggle between the old commies and the younger reformers. nothing else.
How about some informed perspective instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
> they don't have the 1) airforce to provide cover,
> 2) the navy to carry them over, 3) the ability to
> protect the invasion from being observed from
> satelites, which would give us and taiwan
> advanced notice, 4) the ability to hold and
> maintain a beachhead once there
China has an excellent military, including an air force and the navy, which it can use quite effectively. Remember the time when Taiwan was having its first elections, back in 1996? China performed quite a show of force back then, holding exercises in which an occupying force took and held a beachhead and a few islands, giving a good proof of concept for a Taiwan invasion. The comparison with Normandy is misleading; Taiwan does not have anything comparable to the forces that Germans had on that beach. The coast of Taiwan is not all that well protected, and I doubt that the Chinese army would worry much about it, unless the U.S. decided to intervene. As for your comment about satellites; first, advance warning of a few hours is not going to help much against such a powerful adversary; second, if Saddam Hussein had no difficulty hiding tanks in the open desert from both the satellites and ground observation, surely, a technologically advanced nation like China could figure something out.
> second, china built the three gorges dam.
When important national interests are at stake, the Chinese government would be willing to overlook a few casualties.
> we could take it out in about 10 minutes.
Perhaps. But would we? The U.S. needs China way more than China needs the U.S.; China is the producer, the U.S. is the consumer. If the producer loses one market, it could find another. If the consumer loses the goods, he loses the goods. There is simply no way domestic industry could replace all the cheap imports from China. Slave labor is always cheaper than technology.
Re:how bout some perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
first, china simply can't go to war with taiwan. (oh sure, they can fire some missles, but then see down the list.) see, to cross 70 miles of the strait of formosa (taiwan strait) would be an undertaking that would make normandy and okinawa be minor ops. they don't have the 1) airforce to provide cover, 2) the navy to carry them over, 3) the ability to protect the invasion from being observed from satelites, which would give us and taiwan advanced notice, 4) the ability to hold and maintain a beachhead onc
Won't happen (Score:2)
I'd speculate China is very much interested in the lucrative semiconductor bussiness (Taiwan is clearly way ahead of China in this respect; technology exports to China are controlled), and certainly not in conquering Taiwan at any cos
Concern? (Score:2, Insightful)
China did make a token gesture. They will do for Taiwan what they did for Hong Kong.
There will be no referendum. There will be no independence. There will be only status quo, although, the ruling partyin Taiwan WILL get a nice dacha in northern province.
zerg (Score:5, Informative)
As unlikely as more people looking [prospect.org] to China than the U.S. for hopes for a better future.
Taiwan China war (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Taiwan China war (Score:2)
Re:Taiwan China war (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Taiwan has nukes. China has all of their cities on a densely populated coast. Do the math.
2. The US typically keeps an aircraft carrier in the region when things get hot. The idea of the Chinese being able to invade Taiwan in the first place is extremely debatable. They simply do not have the amphibious assets to do so. And, even if they did, American air support would blow them to bits. Don't kid yours
Taiwan needs to get some nukes... (Score:3, Flamebait)
No war.... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. US Popular Support For Taiwan. I don't care what the pessimists, Europeans, and US bashers out there say, the American people love the ideals of democracy, of freedom, etc. Being an American forces you to accept those ideals. Now, since the WMD is gone, Bush has justified the Iraq war as "helping the oppressed Iraqis". What about the Taiwanese? Aren't they going to be oppressed if China takes over? Damn straight they will. And Bush will be fscked, because even if he doesn't want war, his very actions doom him to this one action. There's a famous Latin phrase for this, but I forgot it. Anyone want to help me out?
2. Saber Rattling. China has been rattling it's saber at Taiwan for what? Years, decades even. And it's gotten old. I'll believe the Chinese are going to invade Taiwan when I see shitloads of Chinese troops boarding a cruiser...
3. Economic. China is a fscking Communist, if anyone's forgotten. It represses people. If China doesn't want to go into a recession, it won't invade. Guess what? If China invades, say goodbye to Chinese exports to Western nations. Goodbye to China's booming economy. And goodbye to general Chinese population happiness. China's people are tolerating the government because it's providing a growing standard of living (Although, speaking as a political scientist, it's unclear whether the Communist government can stay in power as capitalism, long a hallmark of Western democracies, booms). Anyway, when China's economy drops through the floor, what happens? Discontentment. Perhaps riots. Worst case scenario, China will need troops just to quell disturbances, etc.
4. Western Help. Come on. As listed in #1, we're going to go help the Taiwanese. Subs, missiles, ships, etc. I'd like to see the nonexistent Chinese Navy, full of Chinese Army troops, get to Taiwan when confronted by the US Seventh Fleet. Not to mention high altitude bomber attacks.
Re:No war.... (Score:2, Informative)
IT industry will benefit from the re-united China (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore they also disencourge people from mainland china visiting and treat all of them as spies. It means you must back to hotel before 7pm and report to your guide everyday! This prevents the normal technical communcation between two areas.
Thirdly there are not direct tranportation method between mainland china to taiwan (must via a third place.) The import tax is almost free for transport industry goods from taiwan to mainland china but is very high for inverse.
All of these aspects lead to the result of many additional, unreasonable costs are attached into the final IT products. One thing is surly confirm that many IT products will become much cheaper(such as motherboard, ram and monitor) if two areas are united, at least in terms of market.
In addition, in fact, for chinese people, we dont call taiwan and china as two countries(For long time western medias have been misleading this key point where most Chinese people, even many people in taiwan, are strongly against). Instead, we use taiwan district of China and mainland China, or Republic of China and People's Republic of China, agreed with both governments.
oh... (Score:5, Funny)
which one are we worried about here?
I could see war happening but not right now (Score:5, Insightful)
"Before him bowed the kings of Shu and Wu,
Content to forfeit kingly power for life.
All down the ages rings the note of change,
For fate so rules it; none escapes its sway.
The three kingdoms have vanished as a dream,
The useless misery is ours to grieve."
These are the opening and ending lines of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the most popular and well-known books in China. In the Chinese mentality the reunification of Taiwan with China is something that is going to happen eventually, if not right now. Why? They look at history. China has always split into 2 or more countries after the end of a dynasty and one of those countries has always gone and defeated the others to reunify China. Since it has always happened in the past it will happen in the future (Chinese believe strongly in cycles). If people wonder where China's obsession with unification comes from...Historical characters such as those in Three Kingdoms who reunite China (or try really really hard eg. Ngok Fei) are always admired and become national heroes and are even elevated to gods.
I can see China invading Taiwan though not right now. If civil unrest continues in China and the economy goes downhill, in order to maintain power the government might raise the spectre of nationalism. Nationalism is already replacing Communism as the idealism the government is using to keep people loyal and faithful. And once nationalism is raised in rhetoric it may be a war that the Chinese government is forced into by its own proclaimations. It may back itself into a corner and decide invading and the consequences would be better than losing face. And unification has always been a fascination of the Chinese as books like Romance of the Three Kingdoms show. Think - a restless China with economic problems, a new young energetic Chinese premier comes into power on the back of a strong nationalist campaign. He thinks - could I become another Guan Yu from Three Kingdoms (who is now worshipped as a god)? The temptation to recreate the Oath of the Peach Tree Garden may be too hard to resist. Chinese rulers have done a lot more stupid illogical frankly self-destructive things in the past.
In these circumstances, the needs of technology users in America are going to be the least of their considerations. Godhood or computer users in the US? Godhood or computer users in the US?
How Close Are We (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How Close Are We (Score:3, Interesting)
Members of OPEC have fought wars without dropping out of OPEC's price-fixing system.
WWI was like that. Some international arms makers, including Vickers and Krupp, received royalties from both sides. They were heavily criticized for this. Read the original "Merchants of Death".
This sort of thing worked better before air power. Wars used to start at frontiers and work towards the capi
Re:How Close Are We (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be interesting to see what would happen to all the Chinese branches of U.S. corpora
China's most recent position (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
India and Pakistan? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why Futures Markets are necessary (Score:3, Interesting)
The big question question here: why haven't the wizards of Wall Street done their job and gotten it together that factors like this just couldn't sabotage the Computer industry or western economies? I think the financial types need to do more real work and less politicing.
Re:News (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps they both got the raw materials for their nukes from the same place (USA) or perhaps Taiwan bought the remains of the South Africian nuke program.
Re:News (Score:5, Insightful)
Pot calling the kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:News (Score:4, Interesting)
It is now considered provoking to tell an agressive outsider who has been eyeing you up for about a century that you will not be governed by a murderous Communist regime?
Maybe we should be telling the Chi-Comms that they need to keep it in their pants. Unlike Tiananmen Square, an attack on Taiwan would effect the economic interests of just about every other country on the planet. Many of us have more nukes than they do. And one of us has a treaty with Taiwan that will function as a defense treaty.
Don't fuck with Taiwan.
Re:News (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:News (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, if they can pull it through, sure why not. I just don't think the USA or the international community should get involved in any way.
It's an internal Chinese matter.
The would would be a better place if China was more like Taiwan.
That's not an objective judgement.
So you think Lord Chamberlain was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Morally we all know Taiwan is an independent state, wether our governments recognise it as such or not.
It is just appeasement all over again.
Re:News (Score:3, Insightful)
that's not a very objective viewpoint, either. I know of about 25 million people who would argue that it's a Taiwanese matter. Most Taiwanese that I know, even if they are pro-unification, have absolutely no interest in doing so under the current (or any) communist regime.
Re:News (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying that Taiwan and China should be left to their own devices, and it doesn't matter who pulls through? If Taiwan fails, it will be because China exherted force upon the island. Unless you're equating might with right (a favourite subject of Herr Hitler), then you should agree that this is wrong.
If it is wrong to subject a people by force, then is it right
Re:News (Score:3, Insightful)
Taiwan: Democratic nation with freedom of speech and press and constitutional guarantees of liberty.
Every time a tyranny falls, the world becomes a better place.
The real tragedy is that someone has to explain this to you.
Re:News (Score:5, Interesting)
What I said about totalitarian regimes doesn't mean it makes it OK by me, but every kind of political definition of China must take into account the very specific history of China.
Toa add to this the "founding fathers" of Formosa, the Kuomitang, were also completely against independence: Taiwan's view on this issue was (and is) exactly the same as PRC. The Real Government of China was the one in Formosa, mainland China was a rebel part of the country.
What is happening now is that the new generation of taiwanese wants independece. PRC will not allow this. We had to "return" Macau some years ago and it was a) not part of China when conquered and b) never ruled by an asian potency for 500 years. Still, China made this huge thing about it, and since it has the weapons, well, let's just say that it would be kind of impolite to refuse.
Of course, they could just say "ok, you're independent, fine with us", but I think they are going to choose the American way: "Want to seceed? Ok, here we go!!!".
cheers
Re:News (Score:5, Insightful)
Because China doesn't give it's citizens the right to vote in a true/fair election.
Becuase China kills/jails those whos religion it doesn't agree with.
As to who gave people the right to be independent? I my opinion, and the opinion of the framers of the US Const., the Creator. Otherwise know as God.
Texas does have that right. (Score:2)
Re:News (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Considering the US Military is supplied by Tawi (Score:2)
Re:Recent Survey of Mainland Chinese on Taiwan Iss (Score:3, Interesting)
Asking people in mainland China if they support keeping Taiwan would be like asking people in England if they thought it'd be a good idea to hang on to the American Colonies or India while they had the chance.