|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYJj24M7mM 0:06 Kunming-Nanning HSR, SW China 0:08 Fuzhou-Pingtan HSR, across the sea, SW China 0:11 Wuhan-Xianning HSR, China's first HSR-over-HSR bridge (over Wuhan-Guangzhou-HK HSR), Central China 0:13 Datong-Xi'an HSR, over Yellow River, NW China 0:16 Harbin'Qiqihar HSR, constructed partly when Songhua River was frozen, NE China 0:18 Chengdu-Guiyang HSR, SW China 0:20 Guiyang-Guangzhou HSR, SW China 0:23 Beijing-Shenyang HSR, tunnel, N China 0:25 Xi'an-Chengdu HSR, over two national expressways, NW China 0:27 Shanghai-Kunming HSR, SW China 0:29 Shenzhen-Maoming HSR, S China 0:31 Beijing-Shanghai HSR, E China 0:33 Kunming-Nanning HSR, SW China 0:34 Hohhot-Zhangjiakou HSR, N China 0:36 Wuhan-Yichang HSR, Central China 0:39 Shanghai-Kunming HSR, SW China 0:41 Kunming-Nanning HSR, SW China 0:43 Huaihua-Hengyang HSR, Central China 0:44 Harbin-Jiamusi HSR, NE China 0:46 Mudanjiang-Suifenhe HSR, NE China 0:47 Kunming-Nanning HSR, SW China 0:50 Kunming-Nanning HSR, SW China 0:54 Zhengzhou-Xi'an HSR, Central China 0:55 Beijing-Guangzhou HSR, over Wuhan-Hefei HSR, Central China 0:59 Kunming-Nanning HSR, SW China drat, that is a lot of bridges..O_o
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Some of those are butt clench worthy; regardless of being in China or whatever, I hate heights. There are a number of reasons for that. HSR viaducts help you keep your line straight when the terrain is uneven. You also save a lot of money and time due to the much lower land acquisition costs. Some of the Chinese HSR projects are totally bonkers. For example, take the Guiyang–Guangzhou line, linking two provincial capitals (Guizhou with Guangdong) in the South while passing over the Guangxi province. Most of the line had to pass over karst terrain, which is an exceptional challenge topography wise for building a speed railway. So they said gently caress it, kept the line as straight as possible, and proceeded to bore 270 tunnels and make aqueducts over 510 valleys along the way. The result was a line that cut the travel time between the cities from 20hrs to 4hrs with trains initially running at 250km/h (now they are shooting for 300km/h there). The 856 km long line was completed in 7 years, and took almost $14Bn to build. Something like 90% of the track is either a viaduct, a tunnel or a bridge.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
That is not much of a factor in HSR lines, since those are today a priori built almost entirely without level crossings in the first place. Same goes for France or Japan, HSR lines are mostly contained. It is still a factor for design though in mixed lines.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Or you could fly in 1 and a half hours and not spend 7 years building a 14 billion dollar plus god-knows-how-much-in-annual-maintainence HSR line carrying negligible economic benefits, but then again where would China be without GDP-generating white elephants. Well this is true, and China has indeed used HSR as a means to boost the economy (especially during and after the 2008 crisis). And they have paid dearly for it too (see the 2011 corruption scandals). It has to be said though. Up until 1000km or so, HSR is ridiculously competitive to regional air travel. This is a good starter, if you are interested in the subject at hand. Watch Out, Airlines. High Speed Rail Now Rivals Flying on Key Routes Also, there is really nothing negligible as far as economic benefits are involved. This is transforming the country. The line I mentioned above connects via rail a 5 and a 15 million metro area (with a lot of other big population centers in between) and can sustain passenger rates vastly superior than a regional air route (while also being a lot cheaper for everyone involved too). China HSR serviced 1.713 billion trips last year for reference, the numbers involved are bonkers really. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:You mean they stole it off everyone else? Technically no, and it's a pretty fascinating story. During the 90's, they tried making a couple of high speed trains themselves, but quickly found out they were not proficient enough to match the reliability and effectiveness in then state of the art rolling stock. So they said gently caress it, and then started an international contest for 200+ sets, pitting the four biggest international competitors against each other. Alstom (Pendolino), Siemens (ICE3), Kawasaki (Shinkansen) and Bombardier (Regina). The competition required the companies to pretty much share almost all the technology in each platform, make strategic partnerships with indigenous firms, and produce most of the stock in China. Siemens didn't want that, so the other three companies got their contracts first. Then Siemens came back and got a contract too. After a couple of years from making said stock, the Chinese started putting on operation their own variant copies, and after that they had enough know-how to move strictly to indigenous, upgraded designs of their own. Everybody knew that was going to happen (the Chinese were pretty adamant on that from the start), but the competing companies nonetheless wished to get as much money as they could squeeze from the Chinese before the curtain fell (greed is a weird thing), so they went forward with it. Now China has a terrific know-how of high-speed rail, and they are building and selling globally their own trains, which btw are sufficiently different than mere copies of other trains. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 11:18
|
|
|
caberham posted:Without accidents please. None that I know off (definitely none in HSR at least). There was a fire in a CRH3 last January, but no casualties.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Context is key. China developing a competent HSR network does not obfuscate the fact that it has a authoritarian government, substantial problems in freedom of press/expression, a crumbling environment, human rights violations etc etc. Regarding the network itself now, the notion that the Chinese are building "railroads to nowhere" is ludicrous. For reference, here are the actual ridership numbers as more lines are coming online.  As I pointed out in an earlier post, they are methodically constructing a network that is designed to link all major cities in the country with a cheap, dependable and fast (for the citizen, not just the elites) high speed rail service. Their original plan (4+4) is pretty much complete, and they are moving on with the 8+8 plan (8 major lines west-east, 8 lines north-south).  This is the "good" stuff. For the bad stuff, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#Corruption_and_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#Wenzhou_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#Slowdown_in_financing_and_construction Dante80 fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
er...trains guys..they are good you know..traaaaaaaiiinnnsss
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:iran’s revolution was good actually Are you talking about the American backed 1953 coup d'état? Because the 1979 revolution was certainly not American backed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 11:35
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I mean 79. But Iran was certainly an American-backed dictatorship/monarchy, and it stopped being terrible because the 79 revolution was good ah, got it. I couldn't decipher the word "actually" in your post.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Unironically this. Seriously? A trade war?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Better than being forever obligated to support a revanchist autocracy that hates everyone because "What about our corporate profits?" I'm talking realism here. Who in their right mind (disregard objectively imbecile Trump for a second) would want to go to a trade war with their biggest trading partner at exactly the time when the world economy is rebounding? And go to a trade war for something that will be considered direct meddling on interior policy by their partner, which would thus gain a valuable chance to rally and consolidate his population against the "meddler"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Well, I quit my job today and start at one of the big Chinese tech companies next week. Nobody during the recruiting process so much as alluded to pretty girls fwiw so that’s progress I guess? I was under the impression that China had a pretty good record (considering - of course) in the subject of labor force participation/equality. In some way, gender equality was an artifact left from Mao era (you know, "They hold up half the sky", and stuff). Charlene Barshefsky, the main negotiator for the US/China WTO discussion, said in an interview that when she entered the office as a women and the lead negotiator, none of her Chinese counterpart showed any surprise, which was a surprise to her. At least, that was my impression. I'm pretty sure that there are many issues with sexism and misogyny in China right now, could this be somewhat linked to the modernization of the economy? I really have no insight to this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
In other news.. Huawei Is Under U.S. Criminal Investigation For Illegal Iran Sales: Here's What's Next quote:On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department is investigating whether Huawei violated U.S. export sanctions related to Iran.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
In other news, Modi is in China again. This has been described as a "no agenda meeting", I'm willing to guess though that they are trying for a small reset of sorts, - at least if anyone can budge on Doklam. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 13:06
|
|
|
Copying as a whole due to WSJ paywall.. __________________________________________________ China’s Challenge to Democracy The democratic cause is on the defensive today, and China’s pragmatic authoritarianism now offers a serious rival model, based on economic progress and national dignity  By David Runciman April 26, 2018 11:32 a.m. ET In his 1992 book “The End of History and the Last Man,” Francis Fukuyama famously declared the triumph of liberal democracy as the model of governance toward which all of humankind was heading. It was a victory on two fronts. The Western democracies held the clear advantage over their ideological rivals in material terms, thanks to their proven ability to deliver general prosperity and a rising standard of living for most citizens. At the same time, to live in a modern democracy was to be given certain guarantees that you would be respected as a person. Everyone got to have a say, so democracy delivered personal dignity as well. Results plus respect is a formidable political mix. The word “dignity” appears 118 times in “The End of History,” slightly more often than the words “peace” and “prosperity” combined. For Mr. Fukuyama, that is what made democracy unassailable: Only it could meet the basic human need for material comfort and the basic human desire for what he called “recognition” (a concept borrowed from Hegel, emphasizing the social dimension of respect and dignity). Set against the lumbering, oppressive, impoverished regimes of the Soviet era, it was no contest. Yet today, barely two decades into the 21st century, the contest has been renewed. It is no longer a clash of ideologies, as during the Cold War. Western democracy is now confronted by a form of authoritarianism that is far more pragmatic than its communist predecessors. A new generation of autocrats, most notably in China, have sought to learn the lessons of the 20th century just like everyone else. They too are in the business of trying to offer results plus respect. It is the familiar package, only now it comes in a nondemocratic form. Since the 1980s, the Chinese regime has had remarkable success in raising the material condition of its population. Over that period, nondemocratic China has made strikingly greater progress in reducing poverty and increasing life expectancy than democratic India: People in China live on average nearly a decade longer than their Indian counterparts and per capita GDP is four times higher. The poverty rate in China is now well below 10% and still falling fast, whereas in India it remains at around 20%. The benefits of rapid economic growth have been made tangible for many hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens, and the regime understands that its survival depends on the economic success story continuing. But China’s rise has been underpinned by more than just improved living standards. There has been a simultaneous drive for greater dignity for the Chinese people. This is not, however, the dignity of the individual citizen as we’ve come to know it in the West. It is collective national dignity, and it comes in the form of demanding greater respect for China itself: Make China great again! The self-assertion of the nation, not the individual, is what completes the other half of the pragmatic authoritarian package. Chinese citizens do not have the same opportunities for democratic self-expression as do citizens in the West or India. Personal political dignity is hard to come by in a society that stifles freedom of speech and allows for the arbitrary exercise of power. Nationalism is offered as some compensation, but this only works for individuals who are Han Chinese, the majority national group. It does not help in Tibet or among Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang. ‘Democracies, because they give everyone a say, are bound to be fickle.’ On the material side of the equation, China’s pragmatic authoritarians have certain advantages. They can target and manage the benefits of breakneck growth to ensure that they are relatively widely shared. Like other developed economies, China is experiencing rising inequality between the very richest and the rest. But the rest are never far from their rulers’ minds. The Chinese middle class is continuing to expand at a dramatic pace. In the West, by contrast, it is the middle class, whose wages and standard of living have been squeezed in recent decades, who feel like they are being left behind. The material benefits of democracy are much more haphazardly distributed. At any given moment, plenty of people feel excluded from them, and the constant changing of course in democratic politics—“We zig and we zag,” as Barack Obama said after Donald Trump’s victory—is a reflection of these persistent frustrations. Democracies, because they give everyone a say, are bound to be fickle. Pragmatic authoritarianism has shown itself more capable of planning for the long-term. This is revealed not only by the massive recent Chinese investment in infrastructure projects—in transport, in industrial production, in new cities that spring up seemingly from nowhere—but also by the growing concern of China’s rulers with environmental sustainability. China is now the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter, but it is also at the forefront of attempts to tackle the issue. Only in China would it be possible to double solar capacity in a single year, as happened in 2016. Western visitors often come back from China astonished by the pace of change and the lack of obstacles in its path. Things appear to get done almost overnight. That is what happens when you don’t have to worry about the democratic dignity of anyone who might stand in the way. Beijing’s reliance on the continuation of rapid economic growth comes with significant risks. The great long-term strength of modern democracies is precisely their ability to change course when things go wrong. They are flexible. The danger of the pragmatic authoritarian alternative is that when the immediate benefits start to dry up, it may be difficult to find another basis for political legitimacy. Pragmatism may not be enough. Nor, in the end, will national self-assertion, if it increases the dangers of geopolitical instability. The central political contests of the 20th century were between rival and bitterly opposed worldviews. In the 21st century, the contest is between competing versions of the same fundamental underlying goals. Both sides promise economic growth and widespread prosperity—tangible results in terms of material well-being. But they differ on the question of dignity: The West offers it to individual citizens, while China offers it more diffusely, to the nation as a whole. The remarkable rise of China shows that this constitutes a genuine alternative. But is it a genuine rival in the West? Might democratic voters be tempted by this offer? One of the striking features of the last century’s battle of ideologies was that the rivals to liberal democracy always had their vocal supporters within democratic states. Marxism-Leninism had its fellow-travelers right to the bitter end, and such people can still be found in Western politics ( Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, potentially the next prime minister and finance minister of the United Kingdom, have never given up the struggle). By contrast, the Chinese approach has almost no one in the West actively advocating its merits. That does not mean, however, that it is without appeal. Mr. Trump’s electoral pitch in 2016 came straight out of the pragmatic authoritarian playbook. He promised to deliver collective dignity, at least for the majority group of white Americans: Make America great again! Stop letting other people push us around! At the same time, he promised to use the state much more directly and forcefully to improve the material circumstances of his supporters. He would bring the jobs back, triple the growth rate and protect everyone’s welfare benefits. What Mr. Trump did not offer was much by way of personal dignity: not in his own conduct, not in his treatment of the people around him, and not in his contemptuous attitude toward the basic democratic values of tolerance and respect. But there are serious limits in the West to the appeal of the Chinese model. First, unlike his counterparts in Beijing, Mr. Trump has shown little capacity to deliver real benefits to the Americans who elected him. He is hamstrung by his own lack of pragmatism and impulse control. He has also been constrained by the checks and balances that democratic politics puts in his way. For now, he looks more like a familiar type of democratic huckster than a harbinger of future authoritarianism in the U.S.: He has over-promised and under-delivered. More fundamentally, it is still very hard to imagine the citizens of Western democracies acquiescing in the loss of personal dignity that would come with abandoning their rights of democratic dissent. We are far too attached to our continuing capacity to throw the scoundrels out of office when we get the chance. Voters in Europe and the U.S. have been attracted lately by novel-sounding promises to kick over the traces of mainstream democracy, but they have not endorsed anyone threatening to take away their democratic rights. The authoritarian reflex has been limited to threats to take away the rights of others—people who supposedly “don’t belong.” All of these movements in the West are populist distortions of democracy, not alternatives to it. Democratic authoritarians like the recently re-elected Viktor Orban in Hungary, who describes himself as an “illiberal democrat,” take their inspiration from Vladimir Putin rather than from the Chinese Communist Party. Pragmatism in countries like Hungary and Russia comes a distant second place to scapegoating and elaborate conspiracy theories. Democracy is still talked up, but stripped of its commitment to democratic rights. Elections take place, but the choice is often an empty one. Chinese politics is far from immune to scapegoating and conspiracy theories. Its leaders pose as strongmen, and Xi Jinping has recently cemented his tight hold on power by being installed as leader for life. But as a viable alternative to democracy, Beijing has something to offer that Moscow and Budapest, to say nothing of today’s Washington, can only gesture toward: Consistent, practical results for the majority. The ongoing appeal of the Chinese model will vary from place to place. It may just stretch to include the edges of our own politics, though it will struggle to reach its heart. It is more immediately appealing in those parts of Africa and Asia where breakneck economic growth is both a realistic prospect and a pressing need. Rapid economic development, coupled with national self-assertion, has an obvious attraction for states that need to deliver results in a relatively short period of time. In these places, democracy often looks like the riskier bet. ‘The triumph of liberal democracy appears a lot more contingent than it did three decades ago.’ In Western societies, the Chinese alternative is unlikely to capture voters’ imaginations, even as it shows them what they might be missing. Still, the triumph of liberal democracy appears a lot more contingent than it did three decades ago. The temptations to try something different are real, even if the most successful current alternative remains a distant prospect for most voters. There’s reason to worry about the weaknesses of our democracies. The kind of respect they provide may prove insufficient for 21st-century citizens. The premium that democracy places on personal dignity has traditionally been expressed through extensions of the franchise. Giving people the vote is the best way to let them know that they count. But when almost all adults are able to vote—in theory, if not in practice—citizens inevitably look for fresh ways to secure greater respect. The rise of identity politics in the West is an indication that the right to take part in elections is not enough anymore. Individuals seek the dignity that comes with being recognized for who they are. They don’t just want to be listened to; they want to be heard. Social networks have provided a new forum through which these demands can be voiced. Democracies are struggling to work out how to meet them. Elected politicians increasingly tiptoe around the minefield of identity politics, unsure which way to turn, terrified of giving offense, except when they deliberately court it. At the same time, they have grown dependent on technical knowledge—from bankers, scientists, doctors, software engineers—to deliver continuing practical benefits. As citizens find less personal dignity in politics and politicians become less able to manage prosperity, the attraction that has held democracy together for so long will start to dissipate. Respect plus results is a formidable combination. When they come apart, democracy loses its unique advantage. The Chinese model faces serious challenges, too. There, personal dignity remains the unrealized option, and the untried temptation is to extend rights of political expression and choice. The use by the Chinese state of social networks to manage and monitor its citizens represents a concerted attempt to resist the pull of democratic dignity and to hold fast to the appeal of pragmatic authoritarian control. Just as the strains in the Western trade-off between dignity and material benefits may not be sustainable over time, the same is true of the Chinese version. That sweet spot, where the two come together, which Mr. Fukuyama identified as the end of history, looks increasingly remote. No one has the monopoly on respect plus results any more. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-challenge-to-democracy-1524756755
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 10:37
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:The thing that becomes apparent to me is that the authors of these articles have rarely lived in China except in the most lavish circumstances. I guess so. It's more of the Pearl Delta/Beijing perspective.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
I've never thought about this subject, to be frank. Back when I was a teen, I used to listen to Punk Rock music. Long story short, the appropriate attire back in the day (shared by most teenagers in Greece) was German army boots, American skinny jeans, a US military flight jacket and...a Palestinian keffiyeh. I never gave much thought on whether the jacket or the scarf would be considered as cultural appropriation, although it is true that most Greek youth in the scene were very supportive of the Palestinian cause (and not so much of NATO or the US).
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
I think that Trump is going to find out pretty soon that China has mastered the "Art of the delay"...which is their best option anyway, with regards to what the current US administration says it wants to do..
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Gr-HLM7Qk
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2018 11:38
|
|
|
I guess this goes in the China thread. Just saw it and was mesmerized. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e_SqBgPHEY&t=198s
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:What's going on in the PLA's weapons programs these days? Apparently, they started work on their third carrier. I mean, they had started this earlier, but now we see the first modules rolling out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-XkGEHaLzU At the same time, a lot of people responsible for said program(s) are (again) getting to the firing squad for some reason.. China’s aircraft carrier troubles continue with more researchers charged with corruption
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
tino posted:edit: all the Chinese carriers news make me question the effectiveness of the rumored anti ship missile. If China has working carrier killer, they wouldn't spend that much money on their own carriers. It's all a big Art of War smoke screen. It's a pretty weird argument. You don't stop building expensive Airplanes because inexpensive SAMs exist, or expensive tanks because inexpensive ATGMs exist. China is trying to develop and field conventionally armed ASBMs because they are pretty un-orthodox and effective defensive weapons (if they work) for keeping Carrier Strike Group bombardment away from the mainland. And China is trying to develop and field Carrier Battle Groups of its own because it has aspirations for force projection outside the first island chain and the benefit of a carrier force to achieving China’s strategic goals far outweighs the risks associated with operating them. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
Yeah, these are not "handy" weapons to use. Even if you are sure that they are conventionally armed (you are not), launching one of these lights up DSP, SBIRS, EKS and Oko like a Christmas tree, signaling the end of the world and the start of frantic love-making because we are all going to die. China is fine with it, because as I said these are designed as area denial defensive weapons for some pretty serious engagements, they are not expected to start poo poo up. US on the other hand wanted a somewhat practical conventional weapon system for rapid response anywhere in the world that you could actually use offensively (let's say, in a fast Syria strike for example), without triggering Hans Zimmer to play the Armageddon movie main title every time it is launched. So, they moved in the direction of hypersonic cruise weapons - at least for now. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Yep, pretty much. Having said that, they do pose a deterrent. It's not like "here is the doom machine, best use before fallout 3 starts". They would add nukes to them if so. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jan 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Yeah, they are still pushing the Taiwan Strait Tunnel Project for some reason...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
China has done more to address extreme poverty 'than any country in the history of civilization'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
wait
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2021 12:22
|
|
|
Come on guys, CCPs ideological stance towards Uyghurs is not akin to historic Nazi ideological stance towards Jews. I mean Godwin's law and all, but this is getting ridiculous. It is very possible to discuss the fuckery happening to the Uyghur people without this kind of prose.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Here is a more interesting question for the thread imo. Should the CCP be pressured by the international community about what is happening to the Uyghurs? Sanctioned? If not, why?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:I mean you could compare it to the treatment of North American indigenous people (residential schools, etc...) which is still pretty genocidey. Sure you can. That is still not what Hitler was going for in Mein Kampf towards the Jews. Owlspiracy posted:ok, provide some specific differences in their treatment of the uyghur people and the nazis treatment of jews prior to '41, particularly jews that lived in germany and austria Most of this doesn't exist in this circumstance. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitic-legislation-1933-1939
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:by the way the actual distinction here is less of a policy of assimilation and more one of exclusion, btw, but you don't seem to know the actual details of nazi policies prior to extermination Had edited my previous post with the answer, since the page changed you might have missed it. Dante80 posted:Most of this doesn't exist in this circumstance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
It would be extremely weird for someone to posit that what is happening right now is not at least a methodical, state enacted cultural genocide of the Uyghur people. The whole idea is to completely pacify and assimilate them into the Han ethos. At least that is what I'm getting so far.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:China literally can't project enough power to retake Taiwan without it looking like Dieppe, they're so far from being able to successfully send a combined arms fleet to like Nigeria or whatever it's not even funny. Is this a 2008 post?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
Anyway..my point was that since 2008 (when it started) PLAN has sent more than 120 destroyers/frigates to the Gulf of Aden alone in escort and patrol missions. They have escorted more than 6000 ships (the majority non Chinese), and rescued over 70 ships in danger. By the end of next year, we are expecting to see Liaoning or Shandong on a similar mission. The logistics and relevant capabilities are already in place. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 02:44 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
Yeah I mean the -checks notes- ..Nigerian Navy in this hypothetical example might give them a good thrashing and all...
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
No, he seriously thinks this. Mostly because he seems to not know what the Gaza Strip blockade actually is, and how weird claiming PRC wants to do the same to the neighboring countries sounds.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
When even Henry loving Ghoul Kissinger says something right, you know that you have hosed up royally.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
South Korea would probably side with China and promptly attack Japan in this scenario.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:perhaps thankfully Why?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2021 23:26
|
|