I will add-in my two bits of interpretation, for what they are worth, perhaps not even a Starbucks frappucino.
Back in 2005 google.com a Chinese general had stated his 'personal' opinion that China will implement the nuclear option on the USA should USA see fit to intervene in the Taiwan Strait in the event of conflict.
At the time, (i) the main line USA press briefly reported the general’s comments and then said no more, (ii) Stratfor naively interpreted the general’s comment as for PRC domestic consumption, even though the comments were made to international reporters without domestic journalists in attendance, (iii) US congressional members, usually dense andas thick as a whale sandwich, first appeared indignant, demanding apologies from PRC government and resignation of the general, and then later concluded that the general may have spoken out of turn, and then finally realized the simple truth, that a warning is exactly that, a warning, as in Korea 1952, as in do not cross the line in the snowy mountain, as in Russia will win should China and USA fight over Taiwan.
Contemporaneous to the above episode, a Chinese ballistic submarine slipped undetected passed USA listening devices and surface within minutes of striking range of Tokyo – again, a warning, as in should USA intervene in the Taiwan Strait, game over for Japan, full stop.
Since that time, Rummy the Defense Secretary and Pentagon hawks complained that Chinese defense policy is not transparent enough, and surely they were joking, for how much more transparent would they want China to be? Name the specific targets and sequence of execution?
Fast forward to 2007 08 08, a no-name researcher, again 'without authorization', warns of the financial nuclear option against debtly-burdened uncle sam, saying in effect that (i) should you really want China to revalue, then instead of just promising to do so, China will instead do so, and the consequences will be on you, (ii) when we do so, the float, should we do so, we can gather up the traditional fallback of nationalism to justify our actions, so that the Chinese population will put up with the resultant economic suffering for a while, and (iii) oh, by the way, before the Olympics Taiwan may again try something stupid, and should they do so, we have the solution should you have the problem - we have the scratch should you have the itch, clear?
At least as unambiguous as Ben Helicopter BurnAndKaput's admonition about print presses and helicopters. Meaning, just in case it is all still not clear, you trash my faith-based forex portfolio I will garbage your make-belief empire, now instead of later, debtor, for you will have sinned.
In the mean time, we will hangout with our Russian friends sinodefence.blogspot.com for exercise even as they plant titanium flags all over the north pole. When you feel you need allies, instead of lap dog Australia and England, and twigs such as the Eastern Europeans, and pnty sniffers of Tokyo, dial 1.800.GET.ME.BEIJING.
And thus the world is convoluted-ly connected, plain as day and as certain as night, without ambiguity, and totally transparent, just the way the US Congress likes it.
Chugs, TJ |
