Engineer
Major
In the scenario, the dam is being used as a WMD and acts as a different kind of "nuclear weapon". It is therefore fully justified for China to respond with nukes.
It's finally done-The Three Gorges Dam
- Thread starter Finn McCool
- Start date
In the scenario, the dam is being used as a WMD and acts as a different kind of "nuclear weapon". It is therefore fully justified for China to respond with nukes.
Actually not an unexpected response, considering which side of the fence you stood. Actually I threw that in to show what China could be up against when it accompanied its response to its attack on the 3 gorges, with a bit of spin. I think the spin aimed at the uncommitted, is so much harder for China, following the world wide exposure on how that Girl at Duke university and her folks at home were treated because she chose to differ from her fellow Chinese students.
Actually Im treading on dangerous ground here esp with the mods and youse
so .............
If that´s your point of departure, you don´t need quote the Duke university case, you might only need look to USA where the neoconservative verbally lynch Your president with conceptions of ´death panel for grammas´ and likening him to Hitler etc, assuming you are an American.
For a Han Chinese to side with Dailai Lama is tantamout to an American identifying himself or herself with KKK, so the response is not surprising, albeit extreme.
ffBy carefully mixing well-grounded arguments with biased and inflammatory ones, you are indeed cunning.:rofl:
vesicles
Colonel
I think we need to clarify what a measured response is. A nuke attack always commands more weight because the devastation it potentially causes. That's why it's one of the WMD. Note the key words here are MD, Mass Destruction. Therefore, it is the magnitude of the weapon's effectiveness that matters, NOT the type of weapon. So if attacking a dam the size of the 3 Gorges dam can match the kind of devastation of a nuke attack, then attacking a dam would be equivalent to a nuke attack. In fact, I believe attacking the dam would be MUCH worse than a nuke attack. A nuke attack destroys one city and less than a million people, while a breached dam the size of 3 Gorges would mean potential loss of hundreds of millions of lives. In that sense, use of nukes is justified. It's WMD vs. WMD.
I don't think any nation has real friends on this planet. What's that famous saying again? friendship doesn't last. It is the national interest that will last forever. Some nations are friends now because they share the same interest. Once that interest is gone, they will walk away from each other. If their interest go opposite ways, they will become enemies. Plain and simple. IF there is a conflict between China and the US, I don't believe anyone will get involved simply to support the US. If their national interest is affected, yes and they will get involved. But if things stay purely between the US and China, no one else will move a finger. Imagine you are told that your sons will be sent to China to fight a war that has nothing to do with New Zealand. How would you feel about that? How long do you expect that kind of policy to last? We are seeing the US getting a lot of help from around the world because the targets have been small and weak. Getting involved doesn't actually take a lot. So many nations may think "what the heck, how much can we lose from sending a few hundred/thousand troops to the Middle East?" Plus, they can gain political credit with the US. AND even more importantly, many nations have their interests to protect in the Middle East. Even like this, many nations are under tremendous domestic pressure to withdraw. No one will think in the same way when talking about fighting China. One has a lot to lose when fighting a nation that big. Even the US would not want to get into a fight with China like that. Just look how the Korean War ended. And everyone will think hard about support the US on this one if it comes to it.
And the list of civilian targets you had only talks about old wars. Opinions change over time. What was acceptable then is no longer acceptable today and will not be acceptable in the future. 60 years ago, people had no trouble using nukes (in fact, two had been used). Now it is unacceptable to use nukes in the same circumstances that motivated the US govn't to use the nukes back then. In Vietnam War, the US was also suffering huge losses, but they did not use any nukes. I would imagine, they would've had no problem using nukes if it was 20 years before then. But opinion changed, using of nukes was no longer acceptable. To apply the same logic, attacking a civilian targets back 60 years ago might be acceptable, but it won't be acceptable today or tomorrow. Especially not the magnitude of attack like the 3 Gorge dam. dropping a few bombs on a village simply cannot be compared to something that likely would devastate half of a nation, a big nation and kill a major percentage of the overall population of the nation.
Last edited:
vesicles
Colonel
I don't think bombing bridges can be compared to an attack on a dam. Oops, the bridge is out. What do we do? Well, just don't cross it!! Oops, the dame is out. What do we do? Nothing!! No comparison.
No, the ball will never be in China's court. China is the one being attacked. How in the name of the Lord does China get to be blamed for what happens??? Please stop saying this as this is illogical. It's equivalent of saying the US gon't should be blamed for what happened on 9/11 because the Airport security, Immigration Dept, CIA and FBI should have done a better job detecting the plot and prevent the whole thing. Yes, to some extent, these institutions did not do a good enough job. But THE ULTIMATE blame is aquarely on Alqaida. Period!!! So using the same logic, the potential attacker of the dam should bare the blame, period!!
And how do you expect the Chinese govn't to do it? A successful attack on the dam means a couple things: 1) China has lost its defense; 2) China has no idea that the attack is coming. In any of these cases, China would not have any time to do anything ahead of the attack. The only thing China CAN do is to respond to the attack. It takes days to empty the dams and only an hour at the most for China to detect a missile being launched, traveling to China, hitting the dam and for the dam to collapse and flood to come down. how do you expect China to empty the dam in an hour that would require days to finish?? To use the same analogy, the US govn't should be blamed for the huge loss of the lives on 9/11 because they should've evacuated everyone in Manhattan and the entire East coast once they found out about the hijack. Well, we know how long it would take to evacuate a city and how long it would take for a plane to get to its target. You should realize how impossible this task is... Same should also be said of the potential dam attack.
Last edited:
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
Every Post? in this thread Surely not. Please tell me where.
AS Ive said in the past, and whether you choose to believe it, is up to you.
Im a person of Chinese ancestry but many generations removed from China. That does not stop me taking pride in her recent achievments. However should she in the process of getting to the top, embark on on a economic or military policy that seriously jeopradizes me or my descendants life in the WEst, then Im seriously opposed and not scared to voice my concerns.
Its a shame that you regard my views as a personal affront, but sometimes the truth about China or should i say the policies of the CCP, can hurt.
Last edited:
ravenshield936
Banned Idiot
yea but the idea here is the 3 gorges dam. it only generates power. and bladerunner im sure u're pretty familiar with the ideas that china isn't a nation that will go invade the west for any reasons right
plus economically, it's about self interests first. it really decides which side of the coin are u at. if u're a chinese citizen, china's policy will most likely serve you better, but in change offers discomfort to other nations. that's acceptable. i wont expect the US to really give a fk if china goes to US one day pleading help. china does wts best to serve her people, and that's acceptable. in contrast, if china decides to be benevolent, the west will only take and spit out the bones. you might have lived in the west a long time, but im here in canada for 15 years already too. and i've learned the west cant be trusted. the west functions as its own pack, and perhaps it will still remain that way in the future. there are some nations that will take every opportunity to degrade china, purely to feel better, or to show their true colors. the media is a great example.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
@ Vesicles Engineer Victodd & others
Whoa & No No No. Lets retrace our steps on this matter.
Aside from the dam being to difficult a target to be attacked, Right from the get go I put forward a suggestion, that should the dam be regarded as a strategic target, Im sure steps would have been taken to convey this to the Chinese, and the steps they could take to avoid it being attacked, and the possibly of wholesale destruction.
You guys have dismissed this suggestion and merely concentrated on the Dam being destroyed in an attack and the response its likely to take, justifying the use of a nuclear respone along the way.
In this I disagree with a more likely secnario in the Chinese taking up the possible attackers offer.
I say this because ( I tried to find the original source for the Generals name, without any luck but some of you guys might remember). One of Chinas top Generals stated that China was not capable of winning a war with America now or in the immediate future, so armed with knowledge this I think the CCP will be very careful on the tactics employed, and certainly not nuclear, despite the rhetoric.
In the aftermath of the fighting when the spin and "Victors justice" kicks in, and all that
I think China will be painted in a very bad light.
Whoa & No No No. Lets retrace our steps on this matter.
Aside from the dam being to difficult a target to be attacked, Right from the get go I put forward a suggestion, that should the dam be regarded as a strategic target, Im sure steps would have been taken to convey this to the Chinese, and the steps they could take to avoid it being attacked, and the possibly of wholesale destruction.
You guys have dismissed this suggestion and merely concentrated on the Dam being destroyed in an attack and the response its likely to take, justifying the use of a nuclear respone along the way.
In this I disagree with a more likely secnario in the Chinese taking up the possible attackers offer.
I say this because ( I tried to find the original source for the Generals name, without any luck but some of you guys might remember). One of Chinas top Generals stated that China was not capable of winning a war with America now or in the immediate future, so armed with knowledge this I think the CCP will be very careful on the tactics employed, and certainly not nuclear, despite the rhetoric.
In the aftermath of the fighting when the spin and "Victors justice" kicks in, and all that
I think China will be painted in a very bad light.
vesicles
Colonel
I understand your question, but you cannot compare the responsibility of the Chinese govn't to protect the dam with the guilt of the attacker. These are two completely different questions. It's like apples vs. oranges. On the one hand, it is a question of China's ability to protect its people and it is a competence problem. On the other hand, it is a question of someone committing a genocide. As you can see, this is definitely not a competence issue. You tried to ask who should be blamed more as in your statement "the ball is in China's court". And what I'm trying to say is "NO, the ball can never be in China's court" because one is playing basketball while the other is playing football.
How do you know an attack on the dam will happen in the immediate future? Why can it not be 100 years from now when China and the US will be on equal footing? Even now, I don't think it would be easy for the US to beat China like many would believe. A good example would be the Korean War when the gap between China and the US was much bigger than now. Also the general said "China cannot win a war against the US". "Cannot win a war" does NOT mean China will lose easily. they could fight to a draw, which was what happened in Korea. or China eventually loses, but not before putting in valiant effort. And "putting in valiant effort" for a country as big as China means the opponent will also have to suffer huge losses. A loss too huge to even justify the war to begin with.
"bad light" doesn't matter too much in the political world. Hitler definitely was in a bad light. Look where Germany is now! I don't see anyone still hate the Germans. Like I said before, things in the political world can turn 180 deg in no time. You can be a good guy and fighting a valiant fight on one day and the next day you all of a sudden become evil. And opposite also happens quickly.
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
All the spin the Western media isn't stopping the insurrection in the Middle East, and the independent movements in Latin America and other regions. The spin only works on a minority of fanatical people who so dearly want to believe and will not give up the faith.
The spin only somewhat works in Western nations. You have about one-third of white Americans who believe in Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Hannity, then you have about one-third of white Americans who believe in CNN, John Stewart, and Colbert. The last third is somewhere in the middle. Black Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Middle Eastern Americans, and Asian Americans have mixed opinions about Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, CNN, Stewart, and Colbert, even though they are bombarded with Western media nonstop. Western Europe is dragging its feet over the US government's plans in the Middle East.
You still have Grace Kelly, Princess Diana, Heidi Klum, Obama's mother, and various Western women who reject Western exceptionalism and choose alternatives. Then there are the many Western men who choose to work in other nations or help other nations.
The US media makes it sound as if the US government's liberation and nation building are succeeding in the Middle East, but it has been a failure according to a large minority of Muslims (possibly most Muslims think the US government's liberation and nation building are disasters and excuses to dominate them). Muslims in Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia also dislike the US government's liberation and nation building. They have lots of protests against the US government, and are constantly working in secrecy against the US government.
The US media also claimed China's economy was MUCH more likely to crash first and crash way before the US economy, but the opposite has been happening.
The Duke University student, Grace Wang (correct name?), revealed she is still young (naive and easily fooled) and she is not the norm. She stated in an interview with US journalists she wanted better conditions for Tibet, but she believed Tibet is a part of China. Meanwhile, most Chinese on the Internet and in the public were much more patriotic and clearly against her moderate approach. The US media purposely focused on one tree and blurred the rest of the forest. They can ignore the coming hurricane, but this doesn't make the hurricane disappear.
Spinning or propaganda is effective, but it's obviously not a silver bullet to all problems.
No matter how the US media spins the hypothetical US government's massive or critical attack on China's Three Gorges Dam, things will get nasty. The US media already has problems spinning the Middle East, weakening grip in Latin America (while China is expanding various relations with various Latin American nations), bad relations with Russia, weakening control over Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan, and unreliable relations in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. The US media and its supporters will lose a lot if they spin to their favor an all-out war with China.
The US media and its supporters have been turning into a dinosaur (see Michael Crichton's "Mediasaurus") ever since the end of the Cold War. It's big and powerful with lots of government support, but it's struggling very hard to adapt to a changing world.
The spin only somewhat works in Western nations. You have about one-third of white Americans who believe in Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Hannity, then you have about one-third of white Americans who believe in CNN, John Stewart, and Colbert. The last third is somewhere in the middle. Black Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Middle Eastern Americans, and Asian Americans have mixed opinions about Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, CNN, Stewart, and Colbert, even though they are bombarded with Western media nonstop. Western Europe is dragging its feet over the US government's plans in the Middle East.
You still have Grace Kelly, Princess Diana, Heidi Klum, Obama's mother, and various Western women who reject Western exceptionalism and choose alternatives. Then there are the many Western men who choose to work in other nations or help other nations.
The US media makes it sound as if the US government's liberation and nation building are succeeding in the Middle East, but it has been a failure according to a large minority of Muslims (possibly most Muslims think the US government's liberation and nation building are disasters and excuses to dominate them). Muslims in Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia also dislike the US government's liberation and nation building. They have lots of protests against the US government, and are constantly working in secrecy against the US government.
The US media also claimed China's economy was MUCH more likely to crash first and crash way before the US economy, but the opposite has been happening.
The Duke University student, Grace Wang (correct name?), revealed she is still young (naive and easily fooled) and she is not the norm. She stated in an interview with US journalists she wanted better conditions for Tibet, but she believed Tibet is a part of China. Meanwhile, most Chinese on the Internet and in the public were much more patriotic and clearly against her moderate approach. The US media purposely focused on one tree and blurred the rest of the forest. They can ignore the coming hurricane, but this doesn't make the hurricane disappear.
Spinning or propaganda is effective, but it's obviously not a silver bullet to all problems.
No matter how the US media spins the hypothetical US government's massive or critical attack on China's Three Gorges Dam, things will get nasty. The US media already has problems spinning the Middle East, weakening grip in Latin America (while China is expanding various relations with various Latin American nations), bad relations with Russia, weakening control over Western Europe, South Korea, and Japan, and unreliable relations in Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. The US media and its supporters will lose a lot if they spin to their favor an all-out war with China.
The US media and its supporters have been turning into a dinosaur (see Michael Crichton's "Mediasaurus") ever since the end of the Cold War. It's big and powerful with lots of government support, but it's struggling very hard to adapt to a changing world.
bladerunner
Banned Idiot
IMO you forgot to add going to war to restore old empires is also unacceptable
I think its silly to speculate on a secnario 100yrs down the track. The geopolitical situation that exists in 2010 may not exist a hundred years from now.
The Dam may not even be there, the authorities have demolished it because, of ongoing problems, long ago.
Getting back to circa 2010, I think the parties will be trying for a short sharp conflict, avoiding escalation at all costs will prevent the dam being considered a priority target.
Last edited: