Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (42468)	12/4/2003 6:02:07 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 74559

Did have the Taiwanese done to deserve invasion by the PLA? Your Chinese friend was the one who made that threat, remember? There are some matters you choose to ignore. Such a thing would happen only in response to a Chinese invasion. We already have in effect many mutual defense treaties with many nations (Taiwan no longer among them, unfortunately) that potentially promise just that. You can stick your head back in the sand now.

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (42468)	12/6/2003 5:34:05 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Malcolm, I assume you know that the USA has the biggest and best megatonnage of fusionable city destroyers of anyone. They have been designed and built to be used if the USA chooses to use them to defend their interests. The USA has already won the first nuclear war. I would not bet too strongly that they won't win the second. The intention of having 20 megaton nukes is in fact to turn cities to radioactive dust. The USA has already done that to two cities, using mere kilotons. The targets are not Auckland [which is nuclear free so bombs aren't allowed here anyway] or Nairobi. They are Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and various other threatening places. I can't see that a nuke is any worse than a knife, poison, gun, bomb or napalm. As some American General said, there's no nice way to kill somebody. When societies wage war on other societies, civilians are always in the firing line. Civilians aplenty in Iraq and Afghanistan have been killed by American soldiers. One at a time, 10 at a time, 100 at a time or 1 million at a time makes little difference to the individual caught up in the maelstrom. If China attacks Taiwan, there will be lots of civilians killed. Maybe the threat of having Beijing converted to radioactive dust will prevent an actual conflict. That's why the USA has the nukes. Same for Russia, France, Britain, India, China, Pakistan and Israel. Oh, and count North Korea in. It's insane, but right now, there really are nukes galore, ready, willing and able to be launched against cities full of people. Personally, I'd prefer a New United Nations to be developed and all nukes and other weapons of war become redundant, left to decompose, or recycled into plough-shares. I would not bet against the USA upping the ante sufficiently to dissuade Jiang Zemin from creating a horror story. We have seen that the USA will attack if their interests are threatened [Iraq for example]. Presumably there would be an escalating process but if in the process of escalation, China was to threaten noocular attack on the USA, I would not be surprised to see the new USA strategy of pre-emptive attack become reality. Lots of people come to live in New Zealand because they are wanting to get away from such insanity. Hopefully, sense will prevail and China won't go killing innocent Taiwanese who just want to row their own boat. Threats are bad enough. If somebody threatens to kill, it's wise to take them at their word. And get in first! It's amazing to me that China is even bothering to make a commotion about Taiwan having referenda. As Jay says, Taiwan isn't going anywhere. They need China. Just as Quebec needs Canada and New Zealand needs Oz and Oz needs the USA. Rules between Taiwan and China will be harmonized, just as they are between NZ and Oz. There's no need for belligerence and murder. What do you do when military aggression is on the rampage? We've seen heaps of that in the 20th century. It seems to be best to nip it in the bud. Give them an inch and they take over. Appeasement seems only to raise the price. Japan was all over Asia before they were turned back. The USSR was all over half of Europe [Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and a chunk of Germany were all under the thumb]. Hitler went berserk. Rwanda became carnage. Mqurice