Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Hua Guofang

VIP Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Hua Guofang

  1. On 3/4/2022 at 11:12 AM, KILZ FILLZ said:

    This is the first I’ve heard of the grain theory. I’ll say this.. our American minds think in four year spurts. If we are lucky we get a two term and then it’s an eight year spurt. Then a new guy comes in and undoes the shit the last guy did, so we lost eight years. 

    russia and even more China…. Think in multi decade long spurts. They have ten and twenty year plans. If I remember right, China has a 100 year plan. 


    Just because you have a long plan doesn't mean it's a good one.

    • Like 1
    • Truth 2
  2. 10 hours ago, Mercer said:


    In my opinion it's conformists like you that enjoy surfing just the shallow surface of this issue, thinking mass murder somehow serves your best interest.



    The fact that you feel you can label and judge people you know so little about shows how intellectually you limited you are. Your dissatisfaction with the world is understandable, but your commitment to lashing out and belittling those who don't conform to your view is an infantile response, based in the frustration of understanding the truth of your impotence.


    You also confirm that polite discussion on this website is barely possible. Pity you must be this way. Cheers.

  3. 30 minutes ago, Mercer said:


    Just so we're clear, I'm using it as a meme, and as an Agorist don't believe in taking part any form of political violence is a solution. 



    Decentralization would be a good thing, a more fragmented, less threatening version U.S. isn't such a bad look for somebody like me that votes with their feet.



    You're giving our enemies too much credit, and us too. We're just as retarded here with, or without the influence of our enemies, and always have been. I'd say our net good overall influence has come from the cultural advances made by free people here, not from our military/political influences. If you've kept up with the body count we rack up daily, we're not doing good there. IMO we need less of that.

    Thanks for the clarification, appreciate the depth of consideration you've given your position.

  4. 11 hours ago, Mercer said:


    This statement makes absolutely no sense to someone like me, who's not content with "slightly less evil".


    It's like choosing a favorite pubic louse.

    I was referring to the 'end of empire' comment and reading that as the collapse of the current political system. the second revolution or what used to be referred to as boogaloo that you've previously voiced enthusiasm for. I believe if there was political and societal collapse in the US, Americas enemies would use the opportunity to enhance the destruction of the republic and do what they could to keep the nation disunited until it is no longer a nation.


    I fully understand that the current system is rotten and root and branch reform is desirable. However, I think bringing that about by way of collapse is a misguided strategy and only setting up the complete destruction of the USA, given the ability of America's global enemies to project power and influence the outcomes of any 'revolution'.



    • Like 1
  5. 10 hours ago, DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER said:

    I legit yelled at her for this and she flipped it back around on me “why you telling random people on the internet my business”.
    Basically told me keep her out my mouth, in so many words. 😆


    Precisely the response my wife would provide as well, given the opportunity.


    I'm just happy to know that I'm not losing my mind and remembering things that didn't happen!

    • Like 1
    • LOL! 1
  6. @Mercer


    - The CCP's economic leverage - agree 100%, it's still the greatest weapon they have and it was ignored for a long time how much they used it. Yeas ago, they threatened to cancel their orders with Airbus because some one (Sarkozy, maybe?) was going to meet the Delai Lama. They stopped importing bananas from Philippines for something I can't even recall now. This was well before they threatened exports of rare earths to Japan.


    However, the way you frame Australia's econ relationship is a bit off. It's not like it's a national decision to trade so heavily with them, it's many individual decisions by tens of thousands of private companies to trade with the world's largest market. The govt has been warning Australian businesses to price risk into their decisions to invest in that market and there have been significant efforts to find other markets for diversification, this being a perfect example: https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/india/ies/index.html


    However, there are just no other markets the size of China and the CCP then leverages those many individual decisions - choosing those like mining who have the most political leverage - to pressure the Australian govt to change policy on things like human rights inside China, COVID investigations, Taiwan, etc. etc.



    - China's military power - I think you're making some fatal errors in the way you frame China's ability to project physical power. China's military capabilities have been growing from a low base, if you use the Korean and Vietnamese wars as a baseline. They are now deploying naval, air, space and cyber capabilities that are shifting the military balance west of Guam. In many of the war games conducted that consider a battle in the Taiwan Straits, the US loses. That wasn't the case 10 years ago. The rate of expansion in the Chinese navy is pretty amazing - especially in terms of subs, aircraft carriers and drones. Of course, they are not at the level of capability and experience we see in the US, but their rate of advancement is much faster than anyone expected and to assume that their economic/market power won't be matched by military might well within our lifetimes is a clear mistake. Indeed, it is that market power and their economic growth that powers the modernisation of Chinese military might.


    - US allies and regional nations should do more - I won't disagree, we should all be doing more. However, the rate of growth in military spending in places like Australia, Korea, etc. is something you might want to look into. But the bottom line is, that even if Australia, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Indonesia all teamed up to fight China (say for dominance west of Guam), we would lose horribly. For starters, we don't have nukes. Secondly, we don't have the economies, technology, experience and markets the US has. We would eventually be picked off one-by-one and crushed. The region needs the US to be able to stand up to the US.


    Secondly, if ROK, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia all came under a Chinese sphere of influence - that is to say that the alliance system broke and regional partners pulled away from the US - China could bar US access to key markets and waterways (not just our economies that suffer, so will America's) and access to critical feeds of intelligence (Pine Gap, Okinawa, THAAD, etc.) would disappear. US forward basing in places like Japan, Australia, Philippines and access to places like Singapore, Jakarta, etc. would also be gone and some one else would be shaping the playing field and taking all the initiative. There's a reason why the US has the alliance system, and it's not just to benefit like minded countries such as Australia. It's because it's very helpful to the US for many, many reasons.



    On your last point, I couldn't agree more. And that's precisely why Xi Jinping is cracking down on so many elements in Chinese society. He knows that his greatest threat is an informed Chinese society with the latitude to make decisions.

  7. 4 hours ago, Mercer said:

    China isn't as big a threat to foreign countries as everyone wants to hype them up as. I'm more interested in, and worried about what they're doing to their own citizens inside their own borders. 


    Then you should be worried about the China threat to the world, because they're exporting the means (technology and training) they use to oppress their own citizens to other countries. The idea is that they're supporting similar governance styles as their own in order to make the world safer for themselves (as in the CCP).


    Secondly, if they gain regional primacy - which they are aiming for beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you read Chinese language material they openly discuss it - do you think that they will treat foreign countries any better than they treat their own citizens? Of course they won't. Just look at the way they infiltrate the Chinese diasporas in other countries in order to manipulate and control them - many of these people weren't even born in China but the CCP still fucks with them:



    the incident in Kuala Lumpur highlights that some of the more troubling activities the government has undertaken have been those targeting the Chinese diaspora.



    “Today, the overseas functions of United Front include increasing the CCP’s political influence, interfering in Chinese (expat communities), suppressing dissident movements, building a permissive international environment for a takeover of Taiwan, intelligence gathering, encouraging investment in China, and facilitating technology transfer.”



    Law said special attention should be paid to relatives of Chinese and Hong Kong officials and law enforcement; those linked to organizations that have publicly supported the national security law; and anyone tied to China's United Front network, which Beijing uses to suppress criticism of the CCP and advance its influence abroad.








    The Chinese Communist Party is also collecting data on foreign citizens at massive scale:



    Most of the 27 companies tracked by our Mapping China’s Technology Giants project are heavily involved in the collection and processing of vast quantities of personal and organisational data — everything from personal social media accounts, to smart cities data, to biomedical data.



    It is estimated that 80% of American adults have had all of their personal data stolen by the CCP, and the other 20 percent most of their personal data.




    @Mercerif you're not a fan of the way the US has acted around the world in the last 70+ years, you're going to hate what the CCP does.

  8. Counter-argument to what I first posted in this thread:



    China’s Tests Are No Sputnik Moment

    • October 21, 2021
    • Quick Take
    Source: Getty
    Summary:  China’s recent tests of a novel nuclear-weapon delivery system may not represent a new threat to the United States. But they should prompt the development of a new diplomatic strategy to prevent a dangerous arms race.
    Related Media and Tools

    In October 1957, electronic beeping from the Soviet satellite Sputnik—the first artificial object placed into orbit around the Earth—sparked near-panic in the United States. Heading the list of concerns was the possibility that future Soviet satellites could be loaded with nuclear weapons, potentially allowing the commies, in the words of then Senate majority leader Lyndon B. Johnson, to drop “bombs on us from space like kids dropping rocks onto cars from freeway overpasses.”

    Superficially, therefore, it seems appropriate that China’s reported tests of an orbital nuclear delivery system, which occurred in July and August 2021, have repeatedly been described as a “Sputnik moment”—if not something “waaaay scarier.”

    While the prospect of a nuclear attack against the United States is terrifying, this is no Sputnik moment—partly because it’s not entirely clear what was tested, but mostly because the threat of a Chinese nuclear attack on the United States isn’t remotely new.

    What the Test Could Mean

    The tests’ purpose is not yet entirely clear. According to media reports, the U.S. intelligence community believes that China tested a new nuclear-weapon delivery system—one that is initially launched into orbit before releasing a glider that then descends onto its target (or at least within “two dozen miles” of it). China acknowledged the July test but claims that it involved a reusable space vehicle.

    James M. Acton
    Acton holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Both interpretations of the test are plausible, though not equally credible. I suspect that, as reported, China is following the Soviet Union’s lead in developing a so-called fractional orbital bombardment system. But I can’t rule out the possibility that China is developing a space plane, like the United States’ X-37B. Because tests of space planes and some orbital weapons could be indistinguishable, determining China’s intentions is difficult. In fact, it is even possible that China tested a technology demonstrator with multiple potential applications.

    U.S. Vulnerability Isn’t New

    Yet to focus on this test is to miss the forest for the trees. China has had the ability to attack the United States with nuclear warheads since the 1980s (and the U.S. territory of Guam was likely vulnerable even earlier). Meanwhile, the United States’ one operational homeland missile defense system—the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system—is explicitly designed to intercept only North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

    U.S. defenses focus on North Korea because China’s ICBM force is too “large and technically sophisticated” to defend against. (In fact, poor test results and chronic mismanagement suggest that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system couldn’t be relied upon to stop North Korean ICBMs either.) As a result, the United States has, for decades, sought to prevent a Chinese ICBM attack by threatening dire consequences—that is, by deterrence—and not by seeking interception capabilities.

    However, like defense officials in the United States—and pretty much every other country, for that matter—Chinese leaders take a worst-case view of what their competitors could do and plan accordingly. There have been no limits on the size of U.S. missile defense deployments since the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. So Beijing is concerned that the United States could seek the capability to attack China’s nuclear forces preemptively and then use missile defenses to intercept whatever surviving missiles are launched in retaliation. Indeed, there is support from some members of Congress for trying to do so.

    The U.S. general officer responsible for homeland defense has assessed that China’s concerns about missile defenses are likely motivating its efforts to build up its ICBM forces. Thus, China is building hundreds of new ICBM silos (even if it’s likely that only some of them will be filled with ICBMs). Beijing is also arming ICBMs with multiple warheads and developing missile defense countermeasures, such as decoys.

    China is also developing non-ballistic nuclear delivery systems that could evade U.S. sensors or fly beneath the reach of U.S. interceptors. These weapons include an intercontinental hypersonic glider as well as “novel nuclear-powered capabilities” (which, if modeled on Russia’s programs, could include a torpedo, a cruise missile, or both). A glider delivered by a fractional orbital bombardment system can also potentially be added to this breathless list.

    It’s Time to Limit Missile Defenses. Again.

    As a resident of northern Virginia who could be incinerated by a large nuclear blast over the Pentagon, I am indifferent about which delivery system carried the warhead that fried me. The focus should be on preventing a nuclear war and mitigating the costs and tensions of a new nuclear arms race.

    The United States has long wanted to engage China in risk-reduction talks. Beijing has long refused. A rethink of U.S. missile defense policy could help break this impasse.

    It is increasingly clear that whatever value the United States hoped to gain from homeland defenses has been more than outweighed by China’s reaction—and Russia’s too. The United States, therefore, should offer to negotiate new limits on missile defenses, to which it would only agree if China and Russia offered very significant concessions in return. It’s time to start planning such a trade.

  9. 47 minutes ago, DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER said:

    My wife is American, but Chinese by ethnicity. You definitely got your intel on me fucked up with someone else. 😆


    No, I think I must have just misunderstood you at the time. My wife is also ethnically Chinese, you and I spoke (about 5 different usernames ago for me) about Chinese wedding traditions. I just assumed that you did a marriage in China.


    Your wife's family is from the Guangdong region though, right?

  10. 2 hours ago, metronome said:

    Came across this interesting little thread on China tonight.  Maybe @Hua Guofangcan speculate on how much meat is on the bones here.  I do remember reading a chapter in Why Nations Fail about this premise though with communism propping up poor countries economies in the short term before the bottom falls out.





    Whilst not the best person to comment, as I'm not an economist, people have been predicting the economic collapse of China for decades. I worked for a consulting firm from around 07 to 15 and for the whole time I was there they were reporting that China's economic model was unsustainable - the bank buyout to meet the grade to enter the WTO was going to sink them, then the underground banking system and caps on prices would cripple them, etc. etc. Now it's Evergrande, debt crisis, Xi's politicisation of the market and hobbling of corporates for the benefit of SOEs, etc.


    I don't know the answer, he may be right. What I do know is that people have been saying very similar things for decades now (Gordon Chang wrote The Coming Collapse of China in the late 70s, put it that way...). One thing that he is actually wrong about is that the ban on Australian coal caused the power shortages across China at moment. There's already a lot of public analysis people can read that argues that it's more than just the behind-the-border barriers on Aussie coal.

    • Like 1
  11. You're on FB?




    What the fuck for? Place is just a data trap full of fucktards.

    • Like 1
    • Truth 1
    • LOL! 5
  12. 9 hours ago, Mercer said:

    America stockpiled "hypersonic" weapons also known as ICBM's that could launch nukes so fast they "circled the globe" AKA into orbit, during the 1950's and 1960's. All ICBM's are hypersonic in nature as those speeds are needed to escape earths atmosphere, and gravity. Basically these guys are 70 years late to the party, but Financial Times is riding that CCP propoganda hype train.


    9 hours ago, Dark_Knight said:

    Feel like this is the equivalent to Russia driving tanks still. Just a flex of strength for marketing. Could be way off with this assumption tho.


    Both inaccurate - very different to ballistic missiles. This is a gliding delivery vehicle, traveling lower and faster, likely with greater maneuverability, able to avoid detection and defeat missile defences better than ballistic missiles. This is new tech that all advanced states have been trying to perfect. Should the reports be accurate, the fact that the Chinese were further advanced than expected is also a big deal, given the implications for US/global intelligence and ability to respond in time with similar projects or fielding counter-measures.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...