Why NO cry nor Sanction against Indian Missiles?

[fox_hound_33]

I am confused. I had the impression from your various posts that you knew something about N.Korea especially so as you said not to trust the media.

Not trusting the media on a issue does not mean one should know everything about the issue. I had said don't trust the war mongering being spewed by today's media. You will never get unbiased facts from these sources and you have to research for yourself to find out whether the war mongering is justified. I never claimed i know something about NK. Though i did write on Iran which you will not find in the media.

I am even more confused with your definition of "responsible".

Where exactly did i define responsibility?

Maybe this might help to narrow down the issue. N.Korea is more responsible than which countries in your opinion.

Define responsibility of a nation first for me and perhaps then i might try.

 

[eatshitndie]

I have this only to add. China doesn't want to project power over distance. That's different from doesn't have the ability, and that's the tradition since thousands of years of ago, broken only once by the Mongolians when they ruled China. Even the minority Manchurians stuck to this tradition when they came to dynastic power. Not interested in invading foreign lands, other than lands considered to be Chinese. That's how Russia became so big in land area, and Mongolia remained so big in land area, Korea is still Korea (but divided North and South by WW2), Vietnam is still Vietnam, Japan is still Japan. China had never been interested to invade and conquer foreign lands, even when it was top global naval power during the Ming Dynasty.

please, don't embarass yourself. do some research on the ming and qing era before you post. ming, under zhu yuanzhang, invaded yunnan which at that time was considered outside china proper. yunnan became fully integrated to china proper after the ming conquest. not only was yunnan invaded, north vietnam was also invaded and occupied by ming troops for about twenty years. vietnamese fought back and reclaimed parts of north vietnam after learning and using gunpowder technology from ming (a lesson that should have been learned by americans that they are feistily proud, independent, and tactically adaptive despite their lack of physical size and heavy industry). under qing (ching), the map of china included mongolia, parts of korea, parts of vietnam and parts of russia/siberia. the current map of the prc does not include mongolia, parts of siberia and russia, parts of north korea, and parts of north vietnam. qing leaders also had designs on korea, and invaded her borders on several occasions. emperor kangxi, in particular, of the qing dynasty, invaded tibet, dzungar, and russia. taiwan was later conquered in 1683. in fact, the qing map of 1820 shows the largest extent of china's "borders".

 

[scroobal]

Firstly I don't think you realise what you wrote in your previous posts and seemed lost. You commented that responsibilty can be interpretted umpteen times. So was looking for your interpretation. You claimed not to be taken in by the media, so I thought you knew something.

Its turns out that you have no clue about N. Korea and also unsure about yourself and what you mean.

By the way, a responsible state is no different to a responsible individual in a society. The words and actions over time creates a consistent pattern and impression that they can be relied upon to act in reasonable and mature manner. As the individual displays this over a course of time in society, a state achieves this in its interaction with other States within the global family. In essence, if you know what a responsible adult is, you can apply similar measures to that of the State.

There are states that are fall into the rogue or failed states category but thankfully these are very few and far between. Typically, the institutions for good governance is lacking ie ruled by a dictator or tyrant. Rogue states gain concern and prominence when they have weapons of significance in their possesion.

The issue was if N.Korea was unfairly picked on. Despite many attempts to seek clarification, you could not throw light on whether it was a rogue or a responsible state. You may want to comment when you have reasonable understanding of the facts at hand.

Not trusting the media on a issue does not mean one should know everything about the issue. I had said don't trust the war mongering being spewed by today's media. You will never get unbiased facts from these sources and you have to research for yourself to find out whether the war mongering is justified. I never claimed i know something about NK. Though i did write on Iran which you will not find in the media.




Where exactly did i define responsibility?




Define responsibility of a nation first for me and perhaps then i might try.

 

[eatshitndie]

prc's 60th anniversary parade had given us a glimpse of the pla's defensive and offensive capabilities. it had also confirmed the fears of defense experts who think the pla's amphibious capabilities have come of age. couple amphibious offensives with airborne assaults, and we get a pretty good idea of the pla's "limited" power projection, especially with regards to marine, heliborne, airborne and elite ground forces - units akin to 'stormtroopers' in the capture and seizure of hard targets on land. we can start a new thread on this.

pla's airborne dragon:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20091013.aspx

pla's wonderful water taxi:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20091015.aspx

 

[fox_hound_33]

Firstly I don't think you realise what you wrote in your previous posts and seemed lost.

The only one here who is lost and beating around the bush is you.

You commented that responsibilty can be interpretted umpteen times. So was looking for your interpretation. You claimed not to be taken in by the media, so I thought you knew something.

I have said this many times, and i am still saying this. If you misinterpret that i know something about NK because i don't trust the media then it's your problem since i made no such claims. I am not going to talk about responsibility of NK, keep asking it and i am not going to reply. However i have provided other examples (not relating to NK) where the media is projecting a wrong impression. I will provide one more below.

Its turns out that you have no clue about N. Korea and also unsure about yourself and what you mean.

I never claimed i have a clue on NK...you are claiming i do.

By the way, a responsible state is no different to a responsible individual in a society. The words and actions over time creates a consistent pattern and impression that they can be relied upon to act in reasonable and mature manner. As the individual displays this over a course of time in society, a state achieves this in its interaction with other States within the global family. In essence, if you know what a responsible adult is, you can apply similar measures to that of the State.

There are states that are fall into the rogue or failed states category but thankfully these are very few and far between. Typically, the institutions for good governance is lacking ie ruled by a dictator or tyrant. Rogue states gain concern and prominence when they have weapons of significance in their possesion.

A responsible nation is akin to a responsible individual, agreed. But once again it is is open to interpretation. You definition of a responsible
nation is all nice and dandy but you seemed to have missed one very important thing:

Who determines a nation is responsible or not? Is there some kind of an independent body , completely unbiased with no self interest that can
determine whether a nation is responsible? Is there an unbiased, independent media via which the citizens of the globe can deduce whether a nation or its rulers are responsible? NO, there is no such body or medium in today's world. Period. If there is please enlighten me.

Let me give you an example:

4 million people in Congo have died in the past decade due to genocide brought about by the rulers of Congo, Uganda and Rwanda for the sake of mining the mineral Coltan from Congo's Mine. Now tell me, according to your definition of a responsible nation are these nations responsible? Hell no, but do you hear the mass media talking about Congo? Do you hear Obama talking about Congo, do you hear about sanctions on Congo. Hell do you even know the name of the presidents of these countries? I don't think you do. The entire world seems to think nothing is wrong in Congo, Why?

Simple......the nations of the world and the west in particular benefit from the mining of Coltan. Congo, Uganda, Rwanda though thoroughly irresponsible are beneficial. That's why you will never hear about dictatorship in Congo or Uganda, Congo and Rwanda being in the axis of evil. How many articles can you point out in the media like newspaper or television that talk about irresponsibility if these nations. This applies for Pakistan and china which are nuclear armed. Chinese generals have stated that they will nuke US over a conflict with Taiwan. But you don't hear about sanctions on china do you?

This example goes back to my stance. Just because the media states something or does not state something does not mean its the truth/untruth. The west will ally with any country, ruled by any dictator, with or with out nuclear weapons, with or with out human rights........ not based on responsibility but based on whether that nation is beneficial to them. We can talk about responsibility of nations till the cows come home but as i pointed out it means nothing to the west.

The issue was if N.Korea was unfairly picked on. Despite many attempts to seek clarification, you could not throw light on whether it was a rogue or a responsible state. You may want to comment when you have reasonable understanding of the facts at hand.

I am sure about myself. The one who is unsure is you.

1. I never started an argument on NK's responsibility......you did.
2. I never claimed i know something about NK.........but you are claiming that i know about NKs responsibility.
3. I was talking about not trusting the media............... but some how you have managed to draw the impression that not trusting the media means i must know something about NK.
4. I have said in my earlier post i don't know anything about NK................ but you keep insisting that i know.
5. I have said i know of some reason why Iran is antagonistic with US, something that you wont find in the media..............but you cleverly
side stepped Iran and keep ranting about NK.
6. In one of your earlier posts you said India is aligned to Russia but i clearly pointed your fallacy............Once gain you cleverly side
stepped that keep ranting about NK.

And i have one very important question for..........What is your stance in this argument between us? My stance is that media cant be trusted,
so don't draw conclusions on nations or for that any matter of importance by just reading to the media. Make your own independent research. I have given some examples of my own research that is supporting mys stance.


What is your stance?? After having wasted my time and effort in replying to so many of your posts i still do not know your stance.You keep on
ranting and ranting like a broken tape recorded about responsibility of NK when i said nothing, absolutely nothing about responsibility of NK.


Look If you want me to continue this conversation do these things:

1. State your bloody stance.

2. Show me how your stance is counter to my stance. (my stance is listed above). If your stance is not related to mine and once again if it is
something about responsibility of NK then you can shut up as i am not willing to waste any more of my. Btw, i have showed above how responsibility of a nations means squat to the topic at hand.

3. After having shown that your stance is counter to mine, provide some verifiable examples like i did to show that your stance is correct and mine is
wrong. So far all your arguments are qualitative. Anybody can talk cock (like the text book definition you gave about a responsible nation). It time you started supporting your stance (whatever that is) by solid examples.


If you cant address the three issues above don't bother replying as i wont.

 

[Ramseth]

please, don't embarass yourself. do some research on the ming and qing era before you post.

I do apologise if I've embarrassed myself. I don't claim to know everything. I share around some things I thought that I knew, and learn new things.

 

[KennyMGM]

Perhaps because nobody takes India seriously for 1. if the missile could actually work in times of war, and 2. India is obviously only interested in whacking Pakistan, which nobody gives a damn if they're nuked. In the case of N. Korea, the prime target is Japan, and beyond that, Alaska, Oregon and California.

===

India's new missile is able to attack China's Harbin
People's Daily Online, China ^ | October 14, 2009

Posted on Friday, October 16, 2009 12:54:05 AM

India's new missile is able to attack China's Harbin

13:37, October 14, 2009

India's Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL) has made its forthcoming Agni-5 missile highly road-mobile, or easily transportable by road, which would bring Harbin, China's northernmost city within striking range if the Agni-5 is moved to northeast India.

The Agni-5 is similar to the Dongfeng-31A presented in China's National Day Military Parade in Beijing .

India is going to test-fire the missile in early 2011.

The ASL, which develops India's long-range, nuclear-tipped missiles, enables the Agni-5 to reach targets far beyond its stated 5,000-km range by quickly moving closer to the target.

Therefore, from various places across India, the Agni-5 can reach every continent except North and South America.

By People's Daily Online

 

[Ramseth]

So how? Sanction India also?

 

[scroobal]

If you have anything on N.Korea, keep us in the loop. We just following your advice not to listen to the media.

The only one here who is lost and beating around the bush is you.

 

[longbow]

Test Fire in 2011 is almost 2 years into the future. Also test fire means test. Problem with these missiles is the tracking system. Propulsion system is no big deal.

===

India's new missile is able to attack China's Harbin
People's Daily Online, China ^ | October 14, 2009

Posted on Friday, October 16, 2009 12:54:05 AM

India's new missile is able to attack China's Harbin

13:37, October 14, 2009

India's Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL) has made its forthcoming Agni-5 missile highly road-mobile, or easily transportable by road, which would bring Harbin, China's northernmost city within striking range if the Agni-5 is moved to northeast India.

The Agni-5 is similar to the Dongfeng-31A presented in China's National Day Military Parade in Beijing .

India is going to test-fire the missile in early 2011.

The ASL, which develops India's long-range, nuclear-tipped missiles, enables the Agni-5 to reach targets far beyond its stated 5,000-km range by quickly moving closer to the target.

Therefore, from various places across India, the Agni-5 can reach every continent except North and South America.

By People's Daily Online

 

[fox_hound_33]

If you have anything on N.Korea, keep us in the loop. We just following your advice not to listen to the media.

Once again conveniently side stepping the issues i raised, not able to comprehend a single word of what i say or pretending not to comprehend. Ranting like an old tape recorder and of course no elaboration on the three points i specifically asked for. To be frank i not surprised at all. You live in a textbook world, utterly oblivious of real world politics and incapable of taking part in a decent reason based debate.

Adios, you have wasted enough of my time.

 

[eatshitndie]

I do apologise if I've embarrassed myself. I don't claim to know everything. I share around some things I thought that I knew, and learn new things.

no need to lah, but graciously given and easily accepted. in public online forums, everyone including postnew the all-seeing eye can be called out for factual errors. that's the beauty of it.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Russia by geography is within range of China. If there's a war between them, it's up to what happen during the war, may the best army of the day win. Britain and France? They can always land troops in China and fight the war in China. There's no sure victory, I agree, in fact high risk of defeat because of the vast area and number of soldiers on the Chinese side (same as what Japan experienced during WW2). However, can China land troops in Britain and France? That's the difference, when we're talking about conventional projection of power over distance. (Disclaimer: I'm talking about conventional warfare, it they start lauching nuclear ballistic missiles from submarines hiding underneath some oceans against each other, then anything goes. See who's missiles are more accurate.) In short, China can't even choose whether or not to take on Britain or France. But Britain or France can choose whether or not to take on China (but at a high risk of defeat).

You are right in some context. China does not have the projection capability just yet but its submarine forces could be a threat to anyone who want to land their troops on its land.

Do you think France or British could ever land their troops on Chinese land? I seriously doubt so. China is not Falkland nor Argentina. The Chinese strategy for the last century is to build a sizable submarine force to deter any aircraft carriers or amphibious landing onto its land. This is a defensive strategic play, in response to the Western military superiority on the sea.

However, over the past years, it seems that China has done more than its original defensive development. Its frigates are getting better and more sophisticated. Submarines begin to have nuclear capabilities which is essentially an offensive buildup. The recent talk about the possibility of building its own aircraft carrier further confirms China's ambition of projecting its forces beyond its shores.

It is notable that its intended build of aircraft carrier is very much more sophisticated than India's. India has a longer coastline than China but it seems that it is not having a better navy fleet than China. This stands in contrast to China's navy development basically because China has this besieged mentality of the need to protect itself against potential Western invasion, which rightfully, has happened quite a number of times in history. i.e. The two Opium wars and the war against Japan. India does not have such historical baggage to start with.

But India is allowed to own nuclear capable missiles basically because it would have close another strategic gap in encircling China by the Western powers led by US. India has once used the strategic play of making military advances while China was busy on the Korean Peninsular front engaging US led UN forces. It is a good strategy as it would stretch and spread the Chinese military force too thin. However, India lost the war eventually.

If the war was fought with US army or even the British army at the Sino-Indo border, things might be very different. This may happen in future if India becomes close allies of the Western powers.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Eatshitndie,

The part of Taiwan is inaccurate. Taiwan has been under the control of Ming Dynasty. After Qing took control of Beijing, the Ming Royal bloodline retreated to Nanjing. After Nanjing fell, some of the Ming Royal bloodline took refuge in Fujian and subsequently Taiwan.

So technically speaking, "conquer" of Taiwan is inaccurate. It is actually the defeat of the last remains of Ming Royal troops in Taiwan.

As for Yunnan, Tibet, Mongolia and even North Vietnam, there have been wars on and off throughout history. Most of the time, it was the empires built on these places that attacked the Han's middle kingdom. Mongolian succeeded in conquering the Han's middle kingdom and formed the Yuan Dynasty. as for Yunan, n North Vietnam, they attacked China under the Liao Empire during the Song Dynasty. Tibet under the Dali Empire also attacked the Middle Kingdom...even the North Korean side, it has always been fighting since Han Dynasty.

Anyway, the point is this, throughout history, there have been multiple territorial invasions and warfare between these places and it is not fair to claim that "China" (depends on how you define it) invaded or conquered any places. Qing Dynasty is basically a non-Han dynasty. If you want to define China as "Han middle kingdom", then it is not accurate at all. Besides, these places were constantly threatening Han middle kingdom whenever it showed any signs of weakness. Ironically, even after they succeeded, they were internalized by the Han culture and became part of "Chinese" territory. eg. Mongolia and Manchuria.

Most of the time, I would say that the Han Middle Kingdom or the "foreign controlled China" were defending their territories instead of expansionary act. i.e. They did not go beyond certain territory boundaries even when they managed to "conquer" these "hostile lands". They were there to eradicate possible hostile regimes intruding their borders.

The only exception Expansionary intention was carried out by the Mongolians during Yuan Dynasty, which extended its power to whole of West Asia, Middle East and eventually Europe.

Strategically speaking, the Hans were basically contended with their middle kingdom which provided enough fertile land and resources for a very comfortable living. They have no incentives to extend their powers beyond the bare lands or the mountainous regions, or beyond the rough seas at all. In contrast, people living in the deserts, bare grass lands and mountainous regions surrounding the middle kingdom have all the strategic incentives to invade the fertile and rich middle kingdom. Thus, from the strategic point of view, the Han middle kingdom has all along, little interests in going on provocative conquer of such lands which in their eyes, "poor" in terms of resources and fertile land. They were always referred as "barbaric region" which was comparatively culturally backward than the Han Middle Kingdom.

Thus, it is fair to say that "China" as an entity or country, has all along very contended with their land and resources. Their land is so fertile that they could feed 1.3 billion people on Earth! Of course, in modern context, new critical resources like oil and uranium are found in those previously "hostile lands".

Goh Meng Seng

please, don't embarass yourself. do some research on the ming and qing era before you post. ming, under zhu yuanzhang, invaded yunnan which at that time was considered outside china proper. yunnan became fully integrated to china proper after the ming conquest. not only was yunnan invaded, north vietnam was also invaded and occupied by ming troops for about twenty years. vietnamese fought back and reclaimed parts of north vietnam after learning and using gunpowder technology from ming (a lesson that should have been learned by americans that they are feistily proud, independent, and tactically adaptive despite their lack of physical size and heavy industry). under qing (ching), the map of china included mongolia, parts of korea, parts of vietnam and parts of russia/siberia. the current map of the prc does not include mongolia, parts of siberia and russia, parts of north korea, and parts of north vietnam. qing leaders also had designs on korea, and invaded her borders on several occasions. emperor kangxi, in particular, of the qing dynasty, invaded tibet, dzungar, and russia. taiwan was later conquered in 1683. in fact, the qing map of 1820 shows the largest extent of china's "borders".

 

[eatshitndie]

Dear Eatshitndie,

The part of Taiwan is inaccurate. Taiwan has been under the control of Ming Dynasty. After Qing took control of Beijing, the Ming Royal bloodline retreated to Nanjing. After Nanjing fell, some of the Ming Royal bloodline took refuge in Fujian and subsequently Taiwan.

So technically speaking, "conquer" of Taiwan is inaccurate. It is actually the defeat of the last remains of Ming Royal troops in Taiwan.

As for Yunnan, Tibet, Mongolia and even North Vietnam, there have been wars on and off throughout history. Most of the time, it was the empires built on these places that attacked the Han's middle kingdom. Mongolian succeeded in conquering the Han's middle kingdom and formed the Yuan Dynasty. as for Yunan, n North Vietnam, they attacked China under the Liao Empire during the Song Dynasty. Tibet under the Dali Empire also attacked the Middle Kingdom...even the North Korean side, it has always been fighting since Han Dynasty.

Anyway, the point is this, throughout history, there have been multiple territorial invasions and warfare between these places and it is not fair to claim that "China" (depends on how you define it) invaded or conquered any places. Qing Dynasty is basically a non-Han dynasty. If you want to define China as "Han middle kingdom", then it is not accurate at all. Besides, these places were constantly threatening Han middle kingdom whenever it showed any signs of weakness. Ironically, even after they succeeded, they were internalized by the Han culture and became part of "Chinese" territory. eg. Mongolia and Manchuria.

Most of the time, I would say that the Han Middle Kingdom or the "foreign controlled China" were defending their territories instead of expansionary act. i.e. They did not go beyond certain territory boundaries even when they managed to "conquer" these "hostile lands". They were there to eradicate possible hostile regimes intruding their borders.

The only exception Expansionary intention was carried out by the Mongolians during Yuan Dynasty, which extended its power to whole of West Asia, Middle East and eventually Europe.

Strategically speaking, the Hans were basically contended with their middle kingdom which provided enough fertile land and resources for a very comfortable living. They have no incentives to extend their powers beyond the bare lands or the mountainous regions, or beyond the rough seas at all. In contrast, people living in the deserts, bare grass lands and mountainous regions surrounding the middle kingdom have all the strategic incentives to invade the fertile and rich middle kingdom. Thus, from the strategic point of view, the Han middle kingdom has all along, little interests in going on provocative conquer of such lands which in their eyes, "poor" in terms of resources and fertile land. They were always referred as "barbaric region" which was comparatively culturally backward than the Han Middle Kingdom.

Thus, it is fair to say that "China" as an entity or country, has all along very contended with their land and resources. Their land is so fertile that they could feed 1.3 billion people on Earth! Of course, in modern context, new critical resources like oil and uranium are found in those previously "hostile lands".

Goh Meng Seng

taiwan was just an outlying tiny speck of island to the ming, not a china proper territory. she became significant to the ming only because of refuge from the manchus. okinawa was more chinese than japanese in that respect during the ming era, but okinawa was not significant to the ming, just like taiwan. it was via extermination conquest of the ming by qing that taiwan became a part of chinese history. otherwise, it's another phucking prehistoric pulau that nobody cares.

also, you should know that early han and early t'ang were no passive domestic wives. they stretched the maps of china and contributed to her expansion (by pre-emptive invasion). the best defense is offense doesn't come from nowhere.

 

[eatshitndie]

It is notable that its intended build of aircraft carrier is very much more sophisticated than India's. India has a longer coastline than China but it seems that it is not having a better navy fleet than China.
Goh Meng Seng

do you mean the former soviet varyag class which the pla acquire or this piece of landlocked shit that can't go anywhere?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

do you mean the former soviet varyag class which the pla acquire or this piece of landlocked shit that can't go anywhere?

Dear Eastshitndie,

The Chinese are very quick learners as well as innovators. Even though they may be backward in terms of technological researches compared to US or even Russia, but their ability to reverse engineer and apply copied technologies is astonishing.

If you have observed, the recent show of military might during 1st Oct parade has given us the sneak preview of the E2000 surveillance aircraft. It looks so much like the American's aircraft which was unfortunately forced to land on Hainan Island not so long ago.

I believe that the Chinese has taken the opportunity to reverse engineered the technology embedded within that aircraft when they practically dismantled the whole aircraft which was sent back to US in pieces.

They have even reinvented Russian fighters' technologies to create their own versions which are believed to be very much improved ones.

What they have here is just an empty shell but we should not underestimate China's ability to equip it with advanced technologies that they have reverse engineered for the past decades.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

taiwan was just an outlying tiny speck of island to the ming, not a china proper territory. she became significant to the ming only because of refuge from the manchus. okinawa was more chinese than japanese in that respect during the ming era, but okinawa was not significant to the ming, just like taiwan. it was via extermination conquest of the ming by qing that taiwan became a part of chinese history. otherwise, it's another phucking prehistoric pulau that nobody cares.

also, you should know that early han and early t'ang were no passive domestic wives. they stretched the maps of china and contributed to her expansion (by pre-emptive invasion). the best defense is offense doesn't come from nowhere.

Taiwan, like Hainan Island, are one of the biggest outlying islands along China's coastlines. Most of the time, they were places where the Emperors banished their unwanted officials. Whether it is significant to China or not is not relevant to the truth that China has exercised its control over these islands.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[eatshitndie]

Dear Eastshitndie,

The Chinese are very quick learners as well as innovators. Even though they may be backward in terms of technological researches compared to US or even Russia, but their ability to reverse engineer and applied copied technologies is astonishing.

If you have observed, the recent show of military might during 1st Oct parade has given us the sneak preview of the E2000 surveillance aircraft. It looks so much like the American's aircraft which was unfortunately forced to land on Hainan Island not so long ago.

I believe that the Chinese has take the opportunity to reverse engineered the technology embedded within that aircraft when they practically dismantled the whole aircraft which was sent back to US.

They have even reinvented Russian fighters' technologies to create their own versions which are believed to be very much improved versions.

What they have here is just an empty shell but we should not underestimate China's ability to equip it with advanced technology that they have reverse engineered for the past decades.

Goh Meng Seng

mr. gms,

reverse engineering is one thing. having 60 years of experience conducting naval flight operations, learning from wars and mistakes, perfecting best practice, and training and equipping a carrier strike force cannot be reverse-engineered. having one or two carriers is one thing. having a carrier battle group is another. china can throw money and men at developing a carrier as large as the nimitz class with copied technology, but it would take them decades (and multiple wars) to arrive at the personnel level, experience and "software" of what really runs a carrier fleet. in other words, it's better to spend the money and resources somewhere else where it's needed most. and me thinks terrestrial aircraft carriers have reached their zenith of their usefulness. it's time to think space-based carriers. leapfrogging rather than following favors the superpower wannabe.

 

[eatshitndie]

Taiwan, like Hainan Island, are one of the biggest outlying islands along China's coastlines. Most of the time, they were places where the Emperors banished their unwanted officials. Whether it is significant to China or not is not relevant to the truth that China has exercised its control over these islands.

Goh Meng Seng

mr. gms,

cheng ho visited the island but did not officially owned it as ming territory. exiles that were sent there were often murdered by the natives or aborigines. it was under dutch colonial rule until koxinga took over while running away from the qing. it was then that it became significant to the ming. it officially became part of fujian province when the qing conquered it. qing, although manchu and an invader of china, became sinicized when they took control of most of china and replaced the ming dynasty. any dynasty that ascended the imperial line in china is regarded as a legit chinese dynasty, including that of the yuan.