I have been worried that China may try invading Sakha. It's rich in minerals and gas. And no, Russia probably won't nuke over it. Nukes won't be used by one nuclear power against another unless there is nothing to lose.

And Flint is right. The circumstances in China favor militarism. Moreover, such population imbalances highly correlate with militarism.

Which is why we need to stop toying with Russia, and help them build up their military so they can fortify their southeastern border.

Who'd have ever thought 'we' would want to help the Russians strengthen their military...

Le sigh, where to begin:

"Then the heaviest problem.... China will soon have up to 100 million men who will have 0 chance to get a wife."

Individually, every male has a chance to get a wife, also any gap between male and female is not contained to one area (ie. there won't be 100 million men standing around twiddling their thumbs demanding a wife). Also there has been change, will be more change, that allows for a second child when the first is a girl (this means there will be families with 1 boy, 1 boy and 1 girl, or 2 girls) which, as well as stopping the death of chinese girls, will level out the male to female ratio.

"Chinese culture also plays into this with the description of themselves as the Middle Land. A sense of superiority pervades their nation."

No, it is a sense of self-denegration. Yes it is called the "middle kingdom", but have a look at what they call other nations, The US is called 美国 "mei guo" which means Beautiful Kindgom, England is called 英国 "ying guo" 英 meaning "Brave". "Saving face

Well China keeps challenging both Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, of who controls what territory.  Actually their hopeing for an incident with any one of them, to move in military forces and take a hold of those lands.

If anything their no longer saber rattling.  Their down and out taking their hand jabbing their finger into someone elses chest...awaiting for a physical attack back, that way they can be viewed as the innocent in the case.  That way they could justify a military venture against one of those territories.

China right now might have a lot of missles, tanks, jets, and military ground forces....but their seriously stupid.

"I notice the guy in China does not refute My retort."

The guy in China sleeps different hours to you...sorry if my desire to sleep doesn't produce PROMPT retorts...also, it is rich coming from you, the guy that ignores most retorts...

"China may have once spanned the region, but times change."

"Should we give Mongolia leadership of all of Continental Asia?"

I thought there was a giant wall to stop the Mongols? Also, Mongolia was part of the Qing Dynasty...Mongol empire collapsed, a long time ago...

"His answer is of course no."

My answer is much more of a grey area. If we take the Mongol Empire, it collapsed, same with the Rome Empire. Britian governed 25% of the world's population in the early 20th century, and it did so without hesitation. Only when it was unable to control those lands, was control handed back. Your "retort" doesn't exactly argue my point either, considering places like Taiwan were under Japanese imperial rule before being handed to China, and the political party still has claims over the WHOLE of China. They consider themselves the "rightful" party of China.

Also, can someone maybe enlighten me as to why Hawaii is considered part of the US? As well as various other islands in the Pacific? The French also still have the French Polynesia (they thought it would be fun and exciting to detonate Nukes there)...I feel your issues with China go deeper than just territorial claims, and it is a sense that they are the "enemy" that threatens your survival. I get the feeling that US attitudes is that if someone is not directly supporting the US, then they are the sworn enemy and any action they take is considered bad (unless it is to support the US). Why is it that other nations are ok to claim certain islands in the Pacific, but if China has a historical claim, then they are nothing more than warmongering.

"Their down and out taking their hand jabbing their finger into someone elses chest...awaiting for a physical attack back, that way they can be viewed as the innocent in the case. "

I call again on the fishing boat incident last year, Japan detained Chinese fisherman, and China sought a diplomatic resolution. As for South Korea, when North Korea attacked, China was calling for calm in the region.

"Illegal land grab is illegal."

Britain still governs land around the world for its Navy, maybe they should also give up those land entitlements, same with the US in the Pacific.

"Notice he cannot refute they started ALL the wars I mentioned as well?

Arogance breeds thick there."

Wow, just wow...maybe you would like me to start pulling up all of the threads you start but never respond to ALL of the refuting information....also, this comment is nothing more than a personal attack...don't refute what I said but just attack me...but I will indulge you...

"attempted to capture Vietnam, fought a very significant fight with India, ..., fought a minimum of three border skirmishes with Russia/USSR"

France controlled Vietnam, the US also tried to "capture" Vietnam and prop up their own groomed leader...and the USSR and the US also had skirmishers, mostly though proxy wars...I find it funny that one nations "border skirmishers" are bad, when the US itself has fought in these places too.

As for India, I think India will be capable of looking after its own interests also. They too can throw millions of soldiers at China, have their own Nuclear arsenal, and their rising economy will allow a boost in military expenditure.

"Ofc if China gave up Tibet they would show they are for peace."

So this is your entire point? Free Tibet?

"Better to prepare and scare them from the idea than sit blissfully thinking no one wants war anymore."

It is better that the US has global hemegony than anyone else that might challenge your authority.

Now Einstein, before you start running your mouth next time "claiming" that because I haven't responded that I CAN'T respond (especially since you should be able to work out my sleeping patterns since you know I am in China...your first "refute" was just after midnight for me), wait for some time before you act all big and tough, but since you started this...I wonder why you havent responded to these posts:

http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=152666&p=2
http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=152827 (this one you even said you would even post more on)
http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=152288
http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=150571 (you blatantly ignored my post here...calling me an "extremist" for pointing out a simple fact...interesting)
http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=152838 (no response...)

This list could go on...

They've shelled installations on rock islands claimed by the Philippines.  South China Sea is wild and wooly

Wornstrum,

I think Flint is naive to maintain that America's foreign policy is morally superior. However, it looks like you are unfairly defending China.

With my realist-like outlook that assumes:
1. The interests who triumph in the competition for power get their way.
2. Beyond its convenience to interests, morality is meaningless in politics.
3. Do unto others before they do it to you. "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

It is no contradiction for me to be concerned with China's future potential, and actively promote efforts to curtail it and maintain America's hegemony on the world stage. It is in my own self-interest to do so. If my nation or the nations aligned with it aren't dominating, then my nation will be dominated. The bizarre part is that you also stand to lose by such a shift in the balance of power, yet you embrace this possible outcome with destiny and joy. Then you also have no problem calling us arrogant. Seriously, wtf?

When you call my nationalism arrogant, my response is simply "dominate or be dominated." If it's not America with the power, then it will be another nation. Only a fool would think that an alternative wouldn't use their power when it suited them.

China is no less morally bankrupt than other nations. They are all scum. Human rights are a sham, and American Exceptionalism is a myth. But for sensible people like myself who understand the consequences of China's disturbance to the balance of power, there is no reason why we shouldn't be concerned about China using its power to benefit itself.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Wornstrum,

I think Flint is naive to maintain that America's foreign policy is morally superior. However, it looks like you are unfairly defending China.

"The bizarre part is that you also stand to lose by such a shift in the balance of power...Then you also have no problem calling us arrogant. Seriously, wtf?...When you call my nationalism arrogant, my response is simply "dominate or be dominated."...Only a fool would think that an alternative wouldn't use their power when it suited them.

"it is only when those economic means begin to fade does the world need to worry"

True, and this scenario is somewhat likely, too.

China wouldn't go to war simply because their 100 million bachelors would have nothing better to do, but because those 100 million bachelors wouldn't be able to afford to do anything better.

Also, I dare you to try talking about the skewed gender ratios with Chinese (I'm sure you can since you are living there).  It's about as touchy a subject as the 3 big T's (Taiwan, Tibet, Tienanmen Square massacre).  The sociological effects of the skewed gender ratios is not a factor to be discounted entirely.

I recall reading about it in the Economist, which doenst give away any content online

but here's a summary of the actions

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/spratly.htm

Rin is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life