• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

Bored of you so I am just going to correct a few points here.

Ummm, the Chinese have more than 1000 missiles pointed at us.

No, actually they don't. China does have some thousand or so short- to medium-range ballistic missiles, but that is their entire arsenal and it is not all aimed at Taiwan. It is divided between the seven military regions, which does mean that hundreds of ballistic missiles would probably be in range of Taiwan. That does not mean they are aimed at Taiwan, only that they could be aimed at Taiwan.

Why does China have the 'right' to build up its military to protect its business interests in Africa.

Well, any country has the right to build up its defensive systems and any country has a right to protect its citizens overseas. I find it weird that you think India has this right and legitimate defensive purposes but somehow China cannot have either.

The desire of many in Japan to amend its Constitution is in RESPONSE to China's buildup.

Oh now that's bull****. If you actually believe that then this suggests you do not even understand certain basic facts about the geopolitics of the region.
 
Bored of you so I am just going to correct a few points here.

You mean you have no response for the rest of the points? You get schooled so your response is to declare boredom. What a child.

No, actually they don't. China does have some thousand or so short- to medium-range ballistic missiles, but that is their entire arsenal and it is not all aimed at Taiwan. It is divided between the seven military regions, which does mean that hundreds of ballistic missiles would probably be in range of Taiwan. That does not mean they are aimed at Taiwan, only that they could be aimed at Taiwan.

Actually, they do. The vast majority of the missiles are in military regions facing Taiwan and they are not long range.

Well, any country has the right to build up its defensive systems and any country has a right to protect its citizens overseas. I find it weird that you think India has this right and legitimate defensive purposes but somehow China cannot have either.

What right does China (or any other state, in fact) have to intervene military for its citizens in another state. In fact, China has repeatedly stated that in no case does one state have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other states -- though they have violated that very premise a number of times.

Look, you can defend dictators, but I am going to call you on it.

Oh now that's bull****. If you actually believe that then this suggests you do not even understand certain basic facts about the geopolitics of the region.

You just have no clue, do you.... Yes, the ultra-nationalists have ALWAYS wanted to amend the constitution, but it had never been supported by a wide spectrum of the Japanese body politic. However, Chinese actions over the past few years in disputed islands and even in waters that are clearly Japanese has changed this from a fringe position in Japan to a far more mainstream one. If you actually understood internal Japanese political dynamics, you would understand this.

As for the other points... I will accept your non-response as a concession...

Now, as I advised, go out, learn more, learn some languages and learn some international law while you are at it... class dismissed...
 
This isn't really surprising, seeing as how China is investing its money in its people, in things like education, public transportation, internet, and so forth. How does the US expect to compete when we are going to be cutting education and not doing much about rising college tuition rates, it may soon be to the point where only a privileged few can actually afford a college education.



Source.

Edit: Also look here

China ain't investing **** in its people if you look at the big picture. They are investing in themselves. Sitting down and actually learning. Person discipline, personal motivation to escape the **** holes they live in.

We build huge schools, have wasteful classes on BS, and the Chinese knuckle down in crap schools.

I've seen tests given to 8th grade kids in the late 1890's America, and my bet is kids today don't graduate with the knowledge they were EXPECTED to know back then at age 13. Stuff they learned in shacks for schools, and many ages of students in one room.

We don't need to invest $$$$$$$$$$, we already "invest" too much. We need to be tougher, demand more, and cut out the crap to reduce our investment. How much does it cost to teach a kid math, science, English, geography and history?

We need a renaissance of discipline and morality. That is why they're going to be kicking our asses... our teachers, parents and students are too lazy, too soft... they're ******s, and eventually we're gonna be ****ed because of it. It's no surprise immigrants are 400% likely to become millionaires here... they see opportunity everywhere, and too many natives are modeled after the Marxist Bitcher in Chief Obama... whine, whine, whine...

We have the best post-secondary schools, and that's because they're private. It's time to get rid of the NEA, and the teacher's union should be busted. That'd be a good start.

.
 
Last edited:
Actually, they do. The vast majority of the missiles are in military regions facing Taiwan and they are not long range.

Looking over more information it would be true to say a majority are within range of Taiwan, but not the vast majority. As far as long range, many are of a range that would also allow them to be used in attacks on Okinawa (something I am sure you understand is significant) and parts of South Korea such as Jeju, where the U.S. is building a naval base. They are also in range of the disputed islands in the East China Sea. As they are positioned these missiles could be deployed towards any of these targets and you can bet such scenarios are considered. In fact, even some its shorter-range missiles could be used on some the Ryukyu islands.

What right does China (or any other state, in fact) have to intervene military for its citizens in another state. In fact, China has repeatedly stated that in no case does one state have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other states -- though they have violated that very premise a number of times.

If it is China's citizens who are threatened or harmed by a government it is well within rights to intervene regardless of how far away the country may be in comparison.

You just have no clue, do you.... Yes, the ultra-nationalists have ALWAYS wanted to amend the constitution, but it had never been supported by a wide spectrum of the Japanese body politic. However, Chinese actions over the past few years in disputed islands and even in waters that are clearly Japanese has changed this from a fringe position in Japan to a far more mainstream one. If you actually understood internal Japanese political dynamics, you would understand this.

What I understand is that you will blame anything and everything on China that you can possibly stretch or misconstrue to blame them. Rising Japanese nationalism is a big reason for changing attitudes and that has very little to do with China. It would certainly be true that China's rise may influence attitudes, but to suggest as you do that this is the primary cause or even a significant cause of attitudes towards Article 9 is just ridiculous.

As for the other points... I will accept your non-response as a concession...

My non-response is only an indication of how seriously I take you as a poster.
 
Looking over more information it would be true to say a majority are within range of Taiwan, but not the vast majority. As far as long range, many are of a range that would also allow them to be used in attacks on Okinawa (something I am sure you understand is significant) and parts of South Korea such as Jeju, where the U.S. is building a naval base. They are also in range of the disputed islands in the East China Sea. As they are positioned these missiles could be deployed towards any of these targets and you can bet such scenarios are considered. In fact, even some its shorter-range missiles could be used on some the Ryukyu islands.

Once again showing me you know very little of the motivations of the Chinese government and their threats toward Taiwan.

If it is China's citizens who are threatened or harmed by a government it is well within rights to intervene regardless of how far away the country may be in comparison.

On what basis?

What I understand is that you will blame anything and everything on China that you can possibly stretch or misconstrue to blame them. Rising Japanese nationalism is a big reason for changing attitudes and that has very little to do with China. It would certainly be true that China's rise may influence attitudes, but to suggest as you do that this is the primary cause or even a significant cause of attitudes towards Article 9 is just ridiculous.

And one of the causes of rising Japanese nationalism is the perceived threat by China. Get with the program or read some Japanese newspapers sometimes.... oh that's right, you can't read Japanese... or Chinese...


My non-response is only an indication of how seriously I take you as a poster.

This coming from someone who doesn't even know basic principles of international law... You have been completely discredited in this and other threads... Learn some more, then come back...
 
China ain't investing **** in its people if you look at the big picture. They are investing in themselves. Sitting down and actually learning. Person discipline, personal motivation to escape the **** holes they live in.

We build huge schools, have wasteful classes on BS, and the Chinese knuckle down in crap schools.

I've seen tests given to 8th grade kids in the late 1890's America, and my bet is kids today don't graduate with the knowledge they were EXPECTED to know back then at age 13. Stuff they learned in shacks for schools, and many ages of students in one room.

We don't need to invest $$$$$$$$$$, we already "invest" too much. We need to be tougher, demand more, and cut out the crap to reduce our investment. How much does it cost to teach a kid math, science, English, geography and history?

We need a renaissance of discipline and morality. That is why they're going to be kicking our asses... our teachers, parents and students are too lazy, too soft... they're ******s, and eventually we're gonna be ****ed because of it. It's no surprise immigrants are 400% likely to become millionaires here... they see opportunity everywhere, and too many natives are modeled after the Marxist Bitcher in Chief Obama... whine, whine, whine...

We have the best post-secondary schools, and that's because they're private. It's time to get rid of the NEA, and the teacher's union should be busted. That'd be a good start.

.

You know. I was about to like your post til you started the partisan crap.

And it's pretty rich for someone who takes every single opportunity (including this one) to bitch about Obama to talk about others whining.
 
Actually, I have given you a pretty basic argument in international law indicating that China did in fact sign a treaty that acknowledged Taiwan as Chinese territory. You just refuse to acknowledge it as such because it would destroy your entire argument.

Still waiting for this nonexistant treaty to be cited...
 
My colleague in Toronto is from mainland China, and he said that to complete most undergraduate degrees you must write a thesis to contribute to a major journal. If you do not achieve peer reviewed status, you do not get your degree.

Their facilities may be slightly lagging behind ours, but their intellect is not. It's only a matter of time before what they have is equal to or greater than what we have. Their politics are unified and we are still bickering about things like abortion and corporate handouts. We're no match and our government doesn't have the stones to do anything about it.
 
My colleague in Toronto is from mainland China, and he said that to complete most undergraduate degrees you must write a thesis to contribute to a major journal. If you do not achieve peer reviewed status, you do not get your degree.

Their facilities may be slightly lagging behind ours, but their intellect is not. It's only a matter of time before what they have is equal to or greater than what we have. Their politics are unified and we are still bickering about things like abortion and corporate handouts. We're no match and our government doesn't have the stones to do anything about it.

I can tell you that this is an exaggeration at best. I taught at a university when I resided in China and not one of my students were required to write such a paper to receive their degrees.
 
I can tell you that this is an exaggeration at best. I taught at a university when I resided in China and not one of my students were required to write such a paper to receive their degrees.

Hrmm is that a logical fallacy?
 
Hrmm is that a logical fallacy?

If MOST students were required to write a paper to be published in a journal in order to get a degree, it would stand to reason that at least one of my students (who came from various departments from the flagship university of the province) would have had to write such a paper. Not one did. I don't doubt that some do, but most? I seriously doubt it.
 
If MOST students were required to write a paper to be published in a journal in order to get a degree, it would stand to reason that at least one of my students (who came from various departments from the flagship university of the province) would have had to write such a paper.

Not at all, actually. It may be a different school of somesort...
 
China ain't investing **** in its people if you look at the big picture. They are investing in themselves. Sitting down and actually learning. Person discipline, personal motivation to escape the **** holes they live in.

We build huge schools, have wasteful classes on BS, and the Chinese knuckle down in crap schools.

I've seen tests given to 8th grade kids in the late 1890's America, and my bet is kids today don't graduate with the knowledge they were EXPECTED to know back then at age 13. Stuff they learned in shacks for schools, and many ages of students in one room.

We don't need to invest $$$$$$$$$$, we already "invest" too much. We need to be tougher, demand more, and cut out the crap to reduce our investment. How much does it cost to teach a kid math, science, English, geography and history?

We need a renaissance of discipline and morality. That is why they're going to be kicking our asses... our teachers, parents and students are too lazy, too soft... they're ******s, and eventually we're gonna be ****ed because of it. It's no surprise immigrants are 400% likely to become millionaires here... they see opportunity everywhere, and too many natives are modeled after the Marxist Bitcher in Chief Obama... whine, whine, whine...

We have the best post-secondary schools, and that's because they're private. It's time to get rid of the NEA, and the teacher's union should be busted. That'd be a good start.

.

I hope your saying that same spiel when China overtakes the US as the world's #1 economy and the US cuts social programs to clear its debt.
 
Ludahai,

I have regular contact with people in China (and not just virtual contact), have been there on numerous occasions, and will be there again on numerous occasions. I've seen some of the things that could well disturb you. I've seen others that are more hopeful. The picture is mixed. There are both opportunities and risks. Therefore, I'm not going to view things either solely from the vantage point of fear or only from the perspective of idealistic optimism.

Of course, it is important to qualify that I am talking from the perspective of bilateral U.S.-China relations. I don't seek to minimize the very real and legitimate concerns many people in Taiwan have. Taiwan's margin for error is much smaller than that of the U.S. The U.S. has to worry about the region's stability and its balance of power. Many people in Taiwan have existential worries, as China still views Taiwan as a part of China, albeit a part that is temporarily separated.

I am also well aware of the almost mortal fears that the CCP has about loss of control of key pillars of power (including information, something that Google did not understand when it chose to issue an ultimatum on filtering of its search engine to China's government--a confrontation it could not expect to win--departed the country, and then returned after making concessions to the Chinese government), the role doctrine plays in shaping the CCP's worldview, the perceptions concerning foreign exploitation during periods of China's weakness, past episodes of fragmentation when central power waned, past revolutionary episodes, latent nationalism, etc. All those elements color the overall outlook and are likely to do so well into the future.

But things are far from hopeless, at least from a U.S. perspective. There are broad shared interests and that's one foundation on which a constructive partnership can be forged, even while recognizing that there are also areas of difference. Consequently, there are genuine risks, too. But at this point in time, a Cold War-type confrontation (between the U.S. and China) need not be a foregone conclusion. Various paths along which the relationship can proceed exist. Today's choices by China's and the American leaders will shape the evolution of that relationship. Circumstances will, too.

Having said all that, the "surprise" that some express that China is building its hard power commensurate with its growing economic power can only exist from a position of naivete. China was once a great power. Aspirations for a return to such stature are not unexpected, if not the norm when the opportunity presents itself. Furthermore, China is proceeding along the typical path of states that are on a rising power trajectory. Its pursuit of hard power and expanded regional influence is not an exception. There should be no surprises concerning those developments.



It appears that you are assuming that I do not believe the U.S. should be tough where its interests and allies are concerned. If so, that is a fundamental misread of my position.

The U.S. absolutely should be prepared to safeguard its critical regional interests and allies politically, and if necessary, militarily. It should continue to assure a regional balance of power that promotes stability and security, especially as significant historic rivalries and multinational maritime disputes exist (and could be exacerbated by resource scarcity, among other possible triggers). My point is that U.S. firmness should be expressed privately and directly. At all times messages of such firmness should be made credible by appropriate actions, otherwise one is doing nothing more than engaging in hollow posturing. In short, advocating the pursuit of cooperation where opportunities and shared interests permit it does not require the United States to sacrifice or ignore its critical interests or allies.

I thought this thead was about the Chinese passing us in science. I have a question, does anyone else ever spend their own money to develop science, or do they spend their money stealing it from other people? I mean to pass someone else in science, don't you actually have to invent something or coming up with something new and unheard of all by yourself? I mean you can't steal originality. What is it exactly that they are doing, that we've never done? I know we didn't invent everything, but to pass the US you'd better have something on the ball.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom