Jump to content


Photo

China


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#21 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 21 June 2007 - 2349 PM

A college friend of mine spent a couple years in the PRC teaching American Lit at a Chinese university. This guy is pretty lefty-lib--several of the conversations we've had on chat in the last few years, I've had to "agree to disagree", regarding his feelings about American aggressiveness, the war on terror, etc. So, coming from him...

He found Chinese uni students to be extremely jingoistic, extremely aggressive militarily, blamed America for everything, were extremely racist against Caucasians. This included the faculty and the staff--Caucasians were believed to be sexually rapacious, and even the Dean (or whatever they call it over there) would make "wink wink, nudge nudge" jokes to Patrick that he found offensive, suggesting that Patrick was only there for the Chinese chicks. He was not allowed to see female students after class hours, because it was believed that all he wanted to do was bed them. He had a camera set up outside his campus residence, to make sure that he did not have Chinese female students over to his house.

At one point, he actually tore up the "government-approved" text book he and his class were using, in front of his class, and tossed it in the wastebasket--he couldn't stand teaching the blatant propaganda in the text. Even basic English lessons were politically loaded. Examples of use for positive words were couched in sentences praising the Communist Party and PRC in general, while negative words and descriptors were couched in sentences derogating Taiwan, Japan, the US, and the West in general. And the Chinese university students accepted all this without question. US college faculty spends all its time hating the West...and Chinese college faculty and students do as well. You don't see any introspective hand-wringing and self-loathing at Chinese unis that you find in US institutions. At all.

So don't expect the emerging Chinese middle class to be more laid-back, Patrick was educating them for several years recently, and they're very militarily aggressive, very "patriotic" in some of the worst ways, and quite hungry for military action against well...pretty much everyone else.
  • 0

#22 gnocci

gnocci

    Crew

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 1,814 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0034 AM

China is a crazy country. Not as crazy as Japan, but then nothing is.
  • 0

#23 Junior FO

Junior FO

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0102 AM

He found Chinese uni students to be extremely jingoistic, extremely aggressive militarily, blamed America for everything, were extremely racist against Caucasians. This included the faculty and the staff--Caucasians were believed to be sexually rapacious, and even the Dean (or whatever they call it over there) would make "wink wink, nudge nudge" jokes to Patrick that he found offensive, suggesting that Patrick was only there for the Chinese chicks. He was not allowed to see female students after class hours, because it was believed that all he wanted to do was bed them. He had a camera set up outside his campus residence, to make sure that he did not have Chinese female students over to his house.


They have had numerous rather bad experiences with guys in their 20's or 30's. Your friend sounds like one of the exceptions but in general their paranoia in that regard isn't unjustified. Another point is that college students in China aren't anywhere close to mature. With many, one basically has to subtract 4-6 years from their age to get an equivalent "western" maturity level. So the girls can be rather "suspectable" and don't necessarily know what they are getting themselves into (they also have ZERO SexEd, so when they do get active, many are stupid).

At one point, he actually tore up the "government-approved" text book he and his class were using, in front of his class, and tossed it in the wastebasket--he couldn't stand teaching the blatant propaganda in the text. Even basic English lessons were politically loaded. Examples of use for positive words were couched in sentences praising the Communist Party and PRC in general, while negative words and descriptors were couched in sentences derogating Taiwan, Japan, the US, and the West in general. And the Chinese university students accepted all this without question.


They never would. Expressing an opinion is pretty much the last thing they would do in class. Doesn't mean they believe all of it or aren't aware of what it is. Of course a certain percentage is genuinely brainwashed but no way to say how many. Talking to them one on one (over time) is the only way and opinions are surprisingly varied.

Edit: The only ones who really seem to get their blood boiling is the Japanese, however considering how the memory of the GPPWAFA is kept alive and cultivated, seemingly from kindergarten onwards in songs, children's stories etc. that is hardly surprising.

So don't expect the emerging Chinese middle class to be more laid-back, Patrick was educating them for several years recently, and they're very militarily aggressive, very "patriotic" in some of the worst ways, and quite hungry for military action against well...pretty much everyone else.


I don't see them as being military aggressive. What they do like is the kind of hat tricks that Bras was talking about. I would expect a lot more at those kind of stunts. However the main thing is giving the illusion of strength (IOW the whole "face" story), the reality is much less important. Funny thing is that they are bipolar schizophrenics. Massive inferiority complexes coexisting with massive superiority complexes and them seemingly switching from one to the other at the drop of a hat.

Edited by Junior FO, 22 June 2007 - 0108 AM.

  • 0

#24 whyhow

whyhow

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0134 AM

well, let me share some second-hand subjective observations too.

Most Chinese I've met would never take any news reports from the official Chinese sources at face value. That's true for people from any authoritarian countries. You friend probably overestimated the effect those "government-approved" textbooks have on his students. They may repeat the official lines, but nobody really believe a word of it, and privately (more often publicly these days) make fun of them.

The population subset your friend had contact with (university students) are probably the most nationalist and aggressive group in China these days. Many are extremely politically naive, overestimate the current capability of their military and economic power, and have highly unrealistic expectations regarding their country's future. Chinese universities are very stressful places. The suicide rate among Chinese college students is probably the highest in the world. They are extremely competitive academically. The students live in primitive living conditions by western standards. And there are few opportunities for sexual relationships. So they are perfect breeding ground for extremist politically ideas. and the only politically acceptable method to express those frustrations is through extreme nationalism and anti-foreign rhetorics. Their favorite target is Japan and too a far less extent, America.

On the other hand, the Chinese I've met who are in their late 20's to 30's, are all single-minded in their determination to build a career and make money. Nobody in that population group care a bit about politics. They may share a certain level of anti-Americanism with the rest of the world after Iraq, but are far more interested in doing business rather than war with us.

On Chinese racism, my impression is that they don't hid it as well as us. I had to take a group of visiting Chinese clients around NYC a while ago, and one of them said to me that they love the city except for "your black people". They don't have the benefit decades of politically correct indoctrination that we do. and they have far less contact with foreign cultures and have far less need to behave politically correct for the sake of racial harmony, in their largely racially homogeneous society.

A college friend of mine spent a couple years in the PRC teaching American Lit at a Chinese university. This guy is pretty lefty-lib--several of the conversations we've had on chat in the last few years, I've had to "agree to disagree", regarding his feelings about American aggressiveness, the war on terror, etc. So, coming from him...

He found Chinese uni students to be extremely jingoistic, extremely aggressive militarily, blamed America for everything, were extremely racist against Caucasians. This included the faculty and the staff--Caucasians were believed to be sexually rapacious, and even the Dean (or whatever they call it over there) would make "wink wink, nudge nudge" jokes to Patrick that he found offensive, suggesting that Patrick was only there for the Chinese chicks. He was not allowed to see female students after class hours, because it was believed that all he wanted to do was bed them. He had a camera set up outside his campus residence, to make sure that he did not have Chinese female students over to his house.

At one point, he actually tore up the "government-approved" text book he and his class were using, in front of his class, and tossed it in the wastebasket--he couldn't stand teaching the blatant propaganda in the text. Even basic English lessons were politically loaded. Examples of use for positive words were couched in sentences praising the Communist Party and PRC in general, while negative words and descriptors were couched in sentences derogating Taiwan, Japan, the US, and the West in general. And the Chinese university students accepted all this without question. US college faculty spends all its time hating the West...and Chinese college faculty and students do as well. You don't see any introspective hand-wringing and self-loathing at Chinese unis that you find in US institutions. At all.

So don't expect the emerging Chinese middle class to be more laid-back, Patrick was educating them for several years recently, and they're very militarily aggressive, very "patriotic" in some of the worst ways, and quite hungry for military action against well...pretty much everyone else.


  • 0

#25 whyhow

whyhow

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0149 AM

However the main thing is giving the illusion of strength (IOW the whole "face" story), the reality is much less important. Funny thing is that they are bipolar schizophrenics. Massive inferiority complexes coexisting with massive superiority complexes and them seemingly switching from one to the other at the drop of a hat.


that trait (make perfect sense considering the past achievements of their civilization and recent overshadowing by the West) is also applicable to the Japanese, but they've had the benefit of two nukes to remind them what war is really like. hopefully the Chinese won't need the same reminder. now aren't we glad they have a sane AND authoritarian government?
  • 0

#26 whyhow

whyhow

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 782 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0151 AM

I'm not sure I agree that China becoming a democracy will somehow make it "safer".


yeah, fascism is the only hope to China, and the world :rolleyes:
  • 0

#27 Ariete!

Ariete!

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,034 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0305 AM

I think it's historically undeniable that 'democracy' in the sense of electoral party politics is not automatically a path to sane / competent government and in some cases has allowed people to vent more easily xenophobic leanings (and in rudimentary, unsophisticated electoral politics gross xenophobia can be quite a successful brand to sell).

That said, China has a lot of significant internal issues. In an even primitive representative set-up, a lot more angst and fury will be vented internally at real problems which have real solutions, as opposed to nasty foreign bogey-men. In a dictatorship where internal dissent is quashed, the xenophobia / irredentism / chauvinism cards are almost a MUST as safety valves. Even war in soem cases. In that sense, a transition to a less authoritarian polity would probably make China less of a strategic threat.

Lastly let me say how balanced and informative this thread has been, so farů

Edited by Ariete!, 22 June 2007 - 0306 AM.

  • 0

#28 M38

M38

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 25 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0322 AM

China has a major problem with corruption through out it's government and military. The outer provinces want to do their own thing rather than play by Bejing's rules. Their banking system is shaky at best. The only people getting wealthy are those in the cities in Eastern China.
I don't know, I'm no expert, but instead of a super srtong major power, I could just as easily see a China that breaks up in civil war and economic collapse.
  • 0

#29 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0432 AM

I don't think so.

Taiwan hasn't ever really been a part of "the empire" proper.


Not quite true. Taiwan has only briefly been a province (1887-1895 IIRC, & 1945-1949), but it was formally part of the empire from the late 17th century, when the Manchus took it from the Ming who'd fled there a few decades earlier & set up an effectively independent state which claimed to be the legitimate government of China (sound familiar?), throwing out the Dutch in the process. The provincial government of Fujian from then on exercised enough control to prevent anyone else taking it. There was often a local governor, & sometimes he was even resident. Firm control was re-established in the 19th century, just in time to lose it to Japan.

The main problem with Taiwan, is that it lays right off the center of China's coast and it's economically powerful. That's a strategic threat.


True, but there's also a very long-standing (a couple of thousand years) Chinese tradition that neighbouring territories which have been settled by Chinese must be incorporated. Settlement preceding the establishment of central rule was very common : in much of southern China expansion seems to have been accomplished by the government one day waking up & realising that since the last reorganisation of local government whole Chinese towns had grown up that weren't paying taxes, out there among the tribals China didn't think worth ruling. Time to follow SOP & send some officials to bring them into the fold. Taiwan has been anomalous because of the strait, but I think Chinese rulers of every stamp for the last 500 years have taken it for granted that it's Chinese, & don't see why anyone would think otherwise. They haven't effectively ruled it most of the time - so what? It's full of Chinese, there was no government (or what they'd recognise as one) when they settled it, & it's contiguous (well, sort of). That's enough. We might see it differently, of course.
  • 0

#30 nigelfe

nigelfe

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,184 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0518 AM

The Chinese govt is driven by fear, fear of 'instability' and 'disorder'. Given China's history this is understandable but it's exacebated by their being an authoritarian regime, and there might also be a bit of a cultural thing - think Singapore.

This fear drives their approach to economic development - development = social stability. Their foreign policy is governed by their desire for resource security to underpin economic development. Hence their activities in Africa (etc) and support for dodgy regimes.

The positive news is that Chinese overseas tourism is set to increase and this will widen the perspective of the middle class. In some ways I think theChina may become more open minded than the US, the number of US passport holders as a percentage of population is not exactly symptomatic of an outward looking and open minded country.

IP is an interesting one, on the one hand getting it underpins economic development, but as they move up the value chain IP also becomes more important to them. In this they are merely copying the US, in the 19th century the US also had a cavalier attitude to foreign IP. It always amuses me to hear US outrage about theft of their IP, yeah, right. Doing and being done to!

You also have to be careful about claiming that cyber attacks originate in China, their innerneck security is focussed on restricting what their citizens have access to. There's plenty of Botnets in China and oppurtunites for routing attacks thru the country. This means that apparant 'attacks' from China may be more apparant than real.
  • 0

#31 SALADIN

SALADIN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,916 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0631 AM

Take any major ethnic group from Asia (Chinese,indians ,arabs and others) enquire of them what they would like to see changed in the current world order and you will find a common thread running thru their responses.That they must get "back" their "rightful place" in the world.

What is their "rightful place"?.For some ( an extremist fringe of muslims for instance) it is a utopian ideal of a Caliphate which stretches across continents and which is immensely powerful and with absolutist moral standards something akin to what existed in the 7th to perhaps 9th centuries.
Of course it aint going to happen for a large variety of reasons but lets deal with that some other time

For a large majority of asians however ,what it means is a gradual change in the huge imbalance of economic, technological and military power that exists and has existed for the past 3 to 4 centuries to a more equal world where their voices and wishes carry weight.Someone put it this way and it sums it up succintly i think "A change from being leaves blown around by the wind to one where we are the wind itself".

The Chinese for instance look back with great pride at the Admiral Cheng Ho's(they have temples for him in SE Asia) fleet which sailed all the way to parts of Africa and got many of the places along the way to accept client/vassal status .An age in their eyes where the world was more equal .The Japanese victory in Tsushima in 1904 for instance was cheered throughout Asia at that time for the same reason i.e . heralding a new age where european dominance could be succesfully challenged.



In the long term IMHO ,this therefore is the issue vexing the Chinese ,how to correct the imbalances in the current world order and is not merely limited to Taiwan or Tibet(if anyone is interested to interefere there in the first place).

Is conflict inevitable?I dont think so, the Chinese have many decades of catching up to do economically and technologically.
  • 0

#32 Brasidas

Brasidas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,624 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 0807 AM

How about this as a problem. The Chinese economy goes through a correction, and lots of jobs are lost. Lots of social instability. A sizable middle class, but still not "mature" enough to be an electorate. The Communist party decides that a way to distract the public from the economic doldrums is to engage in a foreign adventure. Works out ok, until they clash with a nuclear power. Everything is ok, but still tense. The public is hugely supportive of the war, and a few successes go to the PRC forces. Then say they suffer a major reversal and the public is howling for nuclear a response. No Han wants to return to the days when a Han could be killed at will by a foreigner in his own country. There is too much face at stake to lose now. So, to reject the public is to risk revolt IMO. To go nuclear might seem the safer option for the party.

That's my secret fear of how things could get out of hand.

[damn typos]

Edited by Brasidas, 22 June 2007 - 0807 AM.

  • 0

#33 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,607 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 1022 AM

How about this as a problem. The Chinese economy goes through a correction, and lots of jobs are lost. Lots of social instability. A sizable middle class, but still not "mature" enough to be an electorate. The Communist party decides that a way to distract the public from the economic doldrums is to engage in a foreign adventure. Works out ok, until they clash with a nuclear power. Everything is ok, but still tense. The public is hugely supportive of the war, and a few successes go to the PRC forces. Then say they suffer a major reversal and the public is howling for nuclear a response. No Han wants to return to the days when a Han could be killed at will by a foreigner in his own country. There is too much face at stake to lose now. So, to reject the public is to risk revolt IMO. To go nuclear might seem the safer option for the party.

That's my secret fear of how things could get out of hand.

[damn typos]


It seems pretty clear engaging another nuclear power would hardly be away to avoid Hans dying in the mainland or ensuring stability of the government. Particularly when the US, UK, France, and Russia all could deliver more weapons on the PRC than vice versa; only India would be more of a parity of exchange since a lot of medium range weapons could be used on both sides.

If you're talking about a conflict with a non nuclear power like Taiwan or Japan--well at the very least, that would get the US involved if it wasn't already, and even if nuclear weapons were not used in retaliation it seems pretty clear that the retaliation would be quite devasting to the PRC military and economy. To the point that the PRC would no longer be an econmic or military power when the dust settled. And Japan is certainly capable of crash producing a counter nuclear weapon on its own if the country wasn't destroyed as an Industrial nation. Wiping out Japan or Taiwan as a nation seems like a sure way to receivea US nuclear counter force strike, particularly with some kind of effective NMD online. And I would have thought that the Chinese would see nuking fellow Chinese on Taiwan as somewhat immoral or at the least, counter productive to the goal of reintegrating the province.

Basically I think even if the PRC were to go into semi revolt and open war with its neighbors, cooler heads would prevail on the nuclear front if only because there would be little advantage to upping the ante.
  • 0

#34 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,003 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 1027 AM

How about this as a problem. The Chinese economy goes through a correction, and lots of jobs are lost. Lots of social instability. A sizable middle class, but still not "mature" enough to be an electorate. The Communist party decides that a way to distract the public from the economic doldrums is to engage in a foreign adventure. Works out ok, until they clash with a nuclear power. Everything is ok, but still tense. The public is hugely supportive of the war, and a few successes go to the PRC forces. Then say they suffer a major reversal and the public is howling for nuclear a response. No Han wants to return to the days when a Han could be killed at will by a foreigner in his own country. There is too much face at stake to lose now. So, to reject the public is to risk revolt IMO. To go nuclear might seem the safer option for the party.

That's my secret fear of how things could get out of hand.

[damn typos]


The splendid little war that could decay in a "short victorious war" scenario.
  • 0

#35 Brasidas

Brasidas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,624 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 1038 AM

<snip>

Basically I think even if the PRC were to go into semi revolt and open war with its neighbors, cooler heads would prevail on the nuclear front if only because there would be little advantage to upping the ante.


So you're saying, rationality will prevail over hysteria? I hope it would in that worst case I posited, but the more I hear people say "war is not in their best economic interests....." line, the more I recall many countries who had more to lose than gain, went to war over national pride and prestige, and lost big most of the time, and gained little even the times they won big. The most obvious exceptions being the US and USSR during WWII.
  • 0

#36 JOE BRENNAN

JOE BRENNAN

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,970 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 1121 AM

1. The population subset your friend had contact with (university students) are probably the most nationalist and aggressive group in China these days. Many are extremely politically naive, overestimate the current capability of their military and economic power, and have highly unrealistic expectations regarding their country's future.

2. Their favorite target is Japan and too a far less extent, America.

3. On the other hand, the Chinese I've met who are in their late 20's to 30's, are all single-minded in their determination to build a career and make money.

4. On Chinese racism, my impression is that they don't hid it as well as us.

1. And there's a tradition of it. The paragraph could also describe Chinese student activism ca. 1937.
2. Which reminds us why this point is correct. I haven't lived in China, have worked with a number of PRC nationals and in business spent a fair amount of time in Hong Kong. But one can read too ;) , and I don't see any evidence of basic anti-Americanism in China, it's situation and policy dependent AFAIK. If the US policy became to overty try to hold back China economically, China would become anti-American, and why not?

Taiwan is stickier. I don't think Taiwan for China has much directly to do with power politics, economics, or formal victory of the Communists in the Chinese Civil War, and the exact history of its status is secondary too. Foreigners humiliated China in the 19th/20th century. One manifestation was chopping off some pieces. If Taiwan wasn't part of China it wouldn't have been a concession by China to settle the (lost) 1895 war with Japan. It's the last remaining piece to be restored and formally end that period of humiliation. 'Self determination' as on Taiwan alone is not legitimate, it's *China's* humiliation that will be ended, so up to everybody in China. The foregoing is AFAIK the dominant view, nurtured by the education system but it resonates, and is not viewed skeptically even if the powers that be might be so viewed.

I don't mean to say that a friendly US policy toward China will yield a big friendly panda bear of a superpower, I just think it's bogus to say the Chinese already hate the US for some inherent reason so we might as well start confronting them ASAP.

3. My experience also, though again something like Taiwan's rightful place as part of China might not be viewed as just 'politics'.

4. I agree, what people say and think about race are often not equal. I have lived in Korea and Japan, cultural children of China (which Koreans accept, Japanese don't like the idea as much though not so much less true of them). On an international relations level though I doubt any national animus driven by racism; it's bascially not the case in Korea and Japan and again I don't know of evidence of it in China's case either. As to how easy it is as a racial/national minority to get ahead in those societies v the US, I think there is a real difference there, but that's not really the point.

Joe

Edited by JOE BRENNAN, 22 June 2007 - 1129 AM.

  • 0

#37 gnocci

gnocci

    Crew

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 1,814 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 1203 PM

that trait (make perfect sense considering the past achievements of their civilization and recent overshadowing by the West) is also applicable to the Japanese, but they've had the benefit of two nukes to remind them what war is really like.

The stupidity of this comment is astonishing. A US guy patronizing China on what war *really* is :rolleyes:
  • 0

#38 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,607 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 1205 PM

So you're saying, rationality will prevail over hysteria? I hope it would in that worst case I posited, but the more I hear people say "war is not in their best economic interests....." line, the more I recall many countries who had more to lose than gain, went to war over national pride and prestige, and lost big most of the time, and gained little even the times they won big. The most obvious exceptions being the US and USSR during WWII.


Well in all nuclear related screw ups between the Russians and USians to date, calmer heads have always prevailed even when defense systems registered multiple in bound tracks ('79) or suspected depressed trajectory SLBM launch(~'96). To say nothing of longer tentions like the Cuban Missile crisis. I don't see the PRC as being any less pragmatic than the Soviets, and I suspect that the people who actually guard the warheads and missiles are chosen quite carefully.

As for war in general, I don't just think their 'economic interests' would be threatened, I think an unsuccessful war could threaten the countries existance as a single nation controlled by a single government if it went badly enough. Certainly it would not be beneficial or life extending for the people in power I would think. There'd be some explaining to do. EDITTED: misread your post, deleted this section as irrelevant

Given the groth of the PRC economy, in the long run the US might well benefit from a rather destructive war with the PRC now as a way to retard their growth, if it was sufficiently destructive enough to the PRC infrastructure or burdensome enough in destroyed equipment that they were forced to drastically up their defense spending. And I suspect the leadership of the PRC would specifically want to avoid this and make any agressive moves that involve the US at a time and place of their choosing where they could hold a decisive advantage.

Edited by jua, 22 June 2007 - 1217 PM.

  • 0

#39 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,321 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 1328 PM

IMO war by proxy is the most likely situation, possibly in the ME.

There were just reports that the PRC is sending weapons to Iran who then passes them out to forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think their toe is already in the proxy waters.
  • 0

#40 Brasidas

Brasidas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,624 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 1330 PM

<snip>

Given the groth of the PRC economy, in the long run the US might well benefit from a rather destructive war with the PRC now as a way to retard their growth, if it was sufficiently destructive enough to the PRC infrastructure or burdensome enough in destroyed equipment that they were forced to drastically up their defense spending. And I suspect the leadership of the PRC would specifically want to avoid this and make any agressive moves that involve the US at a time and place of their choosing where they could hold a decisive advantage.


This isn't something I am worried about now, this is something I am more worried about in the mid term, say 10 - 20 years down the economic development road. This is also not something I suspect would just be a "US vs PRC" conflict. There are a plethora of possible conflicts within that region alone, and it's not too improbable that a nuclear power could get pulled into it at some point.
  • 0