i would agree with grey's last post, its a case of the classic orwellian principal that governments like china's (well most governments really) maintain internal stability by focusing the public towards external enemies and confilicts. i guessing that its in the chinese governments internal interest, at least in the short term, to keep the re-taking of taiwan as a national goal rather than actualy undertaking the invasion. such an invasion at the present would be disasterous for china, both socialy and economicaly, reguardless of the actual sucess of the mission. hell, the way the economies going they could probably just buy it back in 15yrs or so.

Although there are other subjects on which I would have to differ
from "Omnipotent Voice," he is absolutely right about the Chinese
dictatorship using slave labor. I might add that some of the slaves
get "retired" by being deliberately killed so their vital organs
can be harvested for transplants.

I bear no ill-will to the Chinese people (in fact, my sister and her
husband adopted two darling girls from China); but their masters are
flat-out evil. Their idea of "maximizing stability at home" is to
crush all dissent. And as for whether they are a threat to other
nations: why do you suppose Vietnam, while unrepentant of its own
Communist tyranny, is trying so hard to be conciliatory toward
America (even swallowing its pride and admitting to the fact that
Hanoi would have had no chance of conquering the South if America
had not been tricked into giving up)? It's because Vietnam is afraid
of being taken over by China! Sort of like "It takes one to know
one," the Hanoi dictatorship understands the evil nature of the
Beijing dictatorship.

One problem with the "pre-eminent China" scenario is the peril of extrapolation. Annual growth of 10% is easily recorded from a low base but is a much bigger ask when the full suite of consumer durables is already in house. For that is when the reality on the ground really starts to impact on the projection.

Economies like Australia's achieve continuing growth through larger housing, weekenders, second cars etc, and in relation to China one must ask, where will they fit this stuff? Will we see a boom in Condominiums to soak up the chill winds of Singkiang?

More importantly, lets not forget that demography is still destiny. And the current boom is based on supplying Mao's baby boom with household comforts. The implications of the one child policy have not yet played out but there is only one likely outcome when it does.

That is, a substantial contraction in demand for consumer goods, a reduction in general household expenditure, exacerbated by a shortage of breeding females. And a significant absence of upward pressure on house sizes.

If they manage this well there will be a plateau, if not, a crash based on oversupply and excess capacity. Either way, don't bet your mortgage on a hegemonic superpower just yet.

Grey

I've been doing a little more research on China's aircraft carrier program.

The site to look at is http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm From reading the immense detail in it I'll give you one guess what the Washington based organisation "globalsecurity" is a front organisation for.

Anyway I think the carrier you are referring to the is the Varyag - bought in early 1998 by a Macau-based company, Chin Lot Tourist and Amusement Agency for $20 million dollars.

"The carrier is [now] surrounded with heavy security in Dalian [a coastal city in northern China], which bars civilian access; police flank the shipyard entrance [all really dramatic]'.

'This fueled speculation that the Varyag is being used by the Chinese military. It is not evident that China could actually turn Varyag into an active military warship, since he is badly deteriorated. Presently 70 percent complete, Varyag displaces about 33,600 tons [versus the 67,000-ton design displacement]."

I have to disagree with you on your belief that Russia's carriers (or the rustbuckets China has bought from them) are almost at the technical level of the US.

I'd say that having had no wartime experience Russia's carriers have never been near the technical level of the US. Its pretty hard to know what works technically or operationally when you have not tested equipment, or the people who use it, in a realistic setting.

Russia also lacks experience in fleet operations generally. Its most recent experience was at the Battle of Tsushima (it lost miserably) against a Japanese fleet - in 1905.

Plantagenet,
Good to see people doing their own research.
China has mostly been tight-lipped about their plans for the varyag.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20050826-122944-9316r.htm
The washinton times reports that "While China's eventual intentions for the Varyag remain unclear, a military strategist from a Chinese military university has commented publicly that the Varyag "would be China's first aircraft carrier."

http://www.strategypage.com Stategy Page floated the idea that the Chinese are merely going to use it as a basis for their own designed carrier and/or use it mostly as a helicopter carrier.

My reference to military technology was more to do with non carrier related naval, air and land based technology. But even so, the carrier related technology is probably coming along quickly in several systems.

For some more info, check out
http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050626-122138-1088r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20050627-124855-6747r.htm

Even with its major military spending increases however, it has a long way to go before it can phase out its 1950's era technology.

In all honesty, I suspect China would invade tiawan in 2009 or 2010, after the olympics.

Thanks Grey

I also agree that China will act to takeover Taiwan.

However I think China has more to gain, and more power to do this through economic means rather than military.

I read some time ago (can't recall the source) that there are more than a million Taiwanese nationals working in China.

As China becomes stronger economically it will forge closer economic ties with Taiwan (something that is also attractive to most in Taiwan's business sector).

As time goes on the US will also see China as economically crucial to its own economy so the US' tradional opposition to a merged China will diminish. Basically the aging Taiwan lobby in the US will steadily be overidden by the pro trade lobby.

I think we'll more likely see a European EC type relationship between Taiwan and China and political merger will steadily occur later (say 30 years from now).

Meanwhile the "military-industrial state" (as General/President Eisehower said) of both countries will continue their sabre rattling to justify large defence budgets and "jobs for the generals".