china- female baby rejects. (1 Viewer)

[pete_mate]

surely isnt mainland china, the GDP per capita there is a 6th of what it is here, and that is PPP (adjusted for purchasing power)

if you can find a job that is, their unemployment is double ours, whilst excluding any unemployed that have given up, or dont live in urban areas

no, neo-m
indonesia has 50million people in its army, and spends only 1.5billion on it a year

china as 350 million people and it spends in excess of 60billion, china fucks indonesia,

however, the us has 70billion men and spends 370billion on defence per year = shits all over everyone else, especially considering chinese cant walk over to the USA to attack it, whcih means they must contend with 10 aircraft carriers,

china has 1 at best, and itd be some circa 1970 russian piece of shit anyway

 

[supercharged]

surely isnt mainland china, the GDP per capita there is a 6th of what it is here, and that is PPP (adjusted for purchasing power)

if you can find a job that is, their unemployment is double ours, whilst excluding any unemployed that have given up, or dont live in urban areas

Perhaps for now, but compare how fast the economy and trade is growing in China compared Australia. The standard of living in Australia hasn't changed much compared to ten years ago, but in China it has, admittedly from a lower base, however compared to povo democracies such as Philipines or India, China is doing a heck of alot better than them.

 

[supercharged]

china has 1 at best, and itd be some circa 1970 russian piece of shit anyway

China currently has one ex-russian aircraft carrier but it has no engines, aircraft or weapons on it because it is being used as a floating casino

 

[Xayma]

no, neo-m
indonesia has 50million people in its army, and spends only 1.5billion on it a year

china as 350 million people and it spends in excess of 60billion, china fucks indonesia,

however, the us has 70billion men and spends 370billion on defence per year = shits all over everyone else, especially considering chinese cant walk over to the USA to attack it, whcih means they must contend with 10 aircraft carriers,

china has 1 at best, and itd be some circa 1970 russian piece of shit anyway

But the point was China will most likely have to go through Indonesia to attack us. So they would have to attack Indonesia win there, hold Indonesia, attack Australia, which China would have difficulty doing without Indonesia even though in pure numerical terms they have a huge advantage, we have a huge advantage in our position and technology (Jindalee is a huge advantage to form a co-ordinated defence). Also the requirement for a large defence force at home (those protestors don't assault themselves) means China attacking Australia will not happen in the forseeable future.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

hahahaha china's isn't that impressive as far as economic reforms go... Taiwan shits all over china.

 

[Frigid]

I've been to China. In two years I'll be going on exchange to China for a year. You all know my opinion on China and Frigid, Alicia - you're both being arsetits. China is fucked however, I'm not worried on a personal level at least because...

Your country is fucked. Have a nice day.

and you're interested in such a fucked-up country because...??

it's the chix, isn't it neo.. gonna pull your laowai charm on them, aren't you

btw, call me a prude, but urbandictionary could not define 'arsetit'. care to define my world?

hahahaha china's isn't that impressive as far as economic reforms go... Taiwan shits all over china.

tell me abt it NTB... i couldn't really find info on macroeconomic reform in the Economist. the basic country briefing doesn't say much.

 

[supercharged]

But the point was China will most likely have to go through Indonesia to attack us. So they would have to attack Indonesia win there, hold Indonesia, attack Australia, which China would have difficulty doing without Indonesia even though in pure numerical terms they have a huge advantage, we have a huge advantage in our position and technology (Jindalee is a huge advantage to form a co-ordinated defence). Also the requirement for a large defence force at home (those protestors don't assault themselves) means China attacking Australia will not happen in the forseeable future.

And why the fuck would they want do that in the first place? I could just as equally say China is invulnerable to being invaded by Australia's army in the forseeable future

And yes Taiwan has a higher GDP per capita of population because it has had an open economy for far longer and a much smaller overall population. However the total GDP, land mass and population of mainland China is far bigger than Taiwan and hence the UN and basically every country in the world recognises the Peoples Republic of China (Mainland government) and not the Republic Of China (Taiwan government).

 

[Xayma]

And why the fuck would they want do that in the first place? I could just as equally say China is invulnerable to being invaded by Australia's army in the forseeable future

Of course you could. But China is ruled by one party, one bottle of scotch and its declaring war on everybody (although Australia is in a similar situation I think it might take a few more bottles)

 

[withoutaface]

Also keep in mind that the time they spend trying to conquer Indonesia would give the US sufficient time to mobilise a few Nimitz size carriers to our region if they so choose.

EDIT: Though if they decided nuclear winter was a good idea, the fact that Australia and the US don't to my knowledge live under a NATO type alliance (ie an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members), I'm somewhat doubtful the US would be prepared to compromise their own national security by retaliating in a similar manner. That said, the only reason China would ever want Australia is to increase their living space, and launching nukes would acheive little more than even further international notoriety.

 

[withoutaface]

Of course you could. But China is ruled by one party, one bottle of scotch and its declaring war on everybody (although Australia is in a similar situation I think it might take a few more bottles)

It'd take one bottle which left a majority of the party (including political terrorists) smashed over a period of at least a few weeks.

 

[supercharged]

Of course you could. But China is ruled by one party, one bottle of scotch and its declaring war on everybody (although Australia is in a similar situation I think it might take a few more bottles)

Pffft, in your dreams, saying China could be taken over by Australia is like saying Cuba could successfully invade America!

lol What does being ruled by one party or not have to do with a countries military power? America declares more wars than everyone combined. Btw its year 2005, the Korean war has long settled into a stalemate, so china's soldiers aren't fighting anyone.

 

[supercharged]

That said, the only reason China would ever want Australia is to increase their living space, and launching nukes would acheive little more than even further international notoriety.

Hahahaha no country can win a war against a nuclear power, thats why even America won't attack a pov ass nuclear state like North Korea like they did to Iraqis. Anyway if China wanted to increase its living space it could simply move its people away from coastal cities into the sparsely populated western regions

 

[Xayma]

Pffft, in your dreams, saying China could be taken over by Australia is like saying Cuba could successfully invade America!

lol What does being ruled by one party or not have to do with a countries military power? America declares more wars than everyone combined. Btw its year 2005, the Korean war has long settled into a stalemate, so china's soldiers aren't fighting anyone.

I was saying you could say Australia couldn't invade China.

 

[Generator]

Hahahaha no country can win a war against a nuclear power, thats why even America won't attack a pov ass nuclear state like North Korea like they did to Iraqis. Anyway if China wanted to increase its living space it could simply move its people away from coastal cities into the sparsely populated western regions

I'm assuming that those regions are sparsely populated for a reason.

To tell the truth, that idea is just as stupid as suggesting that we here in Australia have quite a bit of living space to spare out west.

Edit: Oh, yes, hooray for yet another support the motherland at all costs! thread. Criticism, however valid, is not to be tolerated! Fun times.

 

[withoutaface]

I'm assuming that those regions are sparsely populated for a reason.

To tell the truth, that idea is just as stupid as suggesting that we here in Australia have quite a bit of living space to spare out west.

Edit: Oh, yes, hooray for yet another support the motherland at all costs! thread. Criticism, however valid, is not to be tolerated! Fun times.

Of course there is! All we need is a vast network of rivers through the whole of Australia and a couple of thousand weather machines.

 

[Xayma]

Of course there is! All we need is a vast network of rivers through the whole of Australia and a couple of thousand weather machines.

But don't all the rivers lead to a vast inland sea?

 

[supercharged]

I'm assuming that those regions are sparsely populated for a reason.

Of course, those regions are far away from the major economic infrastucture such as port facilities, transport hubs, employment, hotter climate etc

 

[withoutaface]

Indeed by invading Australia China could get ~2.7x their current high density living space.

 

[supercharged]

Indeed by invading Australia China could get ~2.7x their current high density living space.

yeah cool, I welcome our new overlords

 

[withoutaface]

yeah cool, I welcome our new overlords

Just because I've stated that I think there's some motivation to do it, doesn't mean:
a) I think it's happening any time soon.
b) I don't see that the drawbacks would be greater than the potential benefits.