Phase One trade deal, for China it is all about technology war

Recommended Posts

On 1/18/2020 at 2:55 AM, 0R0 said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-tech-usa-verdict/huawei-technologies-loses-trade-secrets-theft-case-against-u-s-chip-designer-idUSKCN1TR2YH

There are many more cases filed and complaints filed with US trade dept.

As a dutiful communist you obviously know of this "liberation" of knowledge from capitalist pigs, by Chinese officials and Chinese capitalist pigs, who are obviously innocent of capitalist crimes. 

There will be a step where the US Dept. of Justice will join in criminal cases against Chinese companies and individuals in a continuous chain that will end up with massive court rulings against Chinese companies and individuals for fines punitive damages and restitution, and will have their assets around the world seized. That may include subsidiaries of companies such as ZTE and Huawei and their real estate, including claims in China. It is the next step and to avoid it, the Chinese penalty will be mercantilist trade commitments of hundreds of billions of US imports. Just enough to put them over the edge into financial crisis, if their own internal leverage doesn't get them first.  

Please do not spread lies.

Let's quote the article:  "CNEX co-founder Yiren “Ronnie” Huang, who quit Huawei and co-founded CNEX days later, breached his employment contract requiring him to notify the company of any patents he obtained within a year of leaving the firm. However, it did not award Huawei damages."  The jury found Huang guilty of breach of contract, and that breach was proof of theft, yet did not award damages.  This is a blatant contempt of US law.  The jury and court are thus nothing more than a kangaroo court. 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I assure you that LNG could replace all the needs of China and eliminate the coal use. I hereby invite all the experts to weigh in on this issue. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281873/worldwide-reserves-of-natural-gas/

1 quadrillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/The-Superpower-Energy-Project-To-Watch-In-2020.html

https://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/ The largest resource of all. 

All of the above could be produced domestically in China if they wanted clean air. Meanwhile they are shortening the lifespans of billions of people around the world. 

 

Note:  the "assurance" is offered by someone who claims Canada has "Prairies States".  

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2020 at 12:19 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

I guess you missed the history classes!!!!

why the shithead response?  repeat: let's see your facts. thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I assure you that LNG could replace all the needs of China and eliminate the coal use. I hereby invite all the experts to weigh in on this issue. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281873/worldwide-reserves-of-natural-gas/

1 quadrillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/The-Superpower-Energy-Project-To-Watch-In-2020.html

https://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/ The largest resource of all. 

All of the above could be produced domestically in China if they wanted clean air. Meanwhile they are shortening the lifespans of billions of people around the world. 

 

Now hydrides would be quite the achievement. So far very little success. The CO2 injection process at least leaves the geology stable. Would not count on that one till I actually saw a pilot project produce enough out of a deposit to alter it so we can see what happens. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Now hydrides would be quite the achievement. So far very little success. The CO2 injection process at least leaves the geology stable. Would not count on that one till I actually saw a pilot project produce enough out of a deposit to alter it so we can see what happens. 

I would love to find an ongoing site on such efforts but they may be secretive so hard to find. I know Japan is one of the nations working on it since they are energy poor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I. Information is really thin. Some bits about academic research but little showing a transition to commercial trials. I am pretty sure that the people who will make it happen have been born. But no idea how long it will take to get to eventual production. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, 0R0 said:

So do I. Information is really thin. Some bits about academic research but little showing a transition to commercial trials. I am pretty sure that the people who will make it happen have been born. But no idea how long it will take to get to eventual production. 

Meanwhile, natural gas is superabundant and is at record low pricing so what we are just flaring it off because of lax regulation worldwide. Apparently, not an issue for the global warming crowd. They are intent on conflating all fossil fuels and demonizing them. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

39 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Meanwhile, natural gas is superabundant and is at record low pricing so what we are just flaring it off because of lax regulation worldwide. Apparently, not an issue for the global warming crowd. They are intent on conflating all fossil fuels and demonizing them. 

Natural gas is cheap in the United States, because lack of transport capacity to sell it overseas or bring it to all domestic clients.

Imagine the isolated island, 100 inhabitants, 1/3 engaged in pigs breedings and 500 pigs, with cost of transport of 1 pig to out-of -the-island consumers at the level of 1/2 of pig value and ferry has limited capacity. Pork would be cheap there. In China they would get 5 times the price (like Americans for their LNG) but cannot transport the damn animals, and pigs do not fly.

Edited by Marcin2
typo
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Natural gas is cheap in the United States, because lack of transport capacity to sell it overseas or bring it to all domestic clients.

Imagine the isolated island, 100 inhabitants, 1/3 engaged in pigs breedings and 500 pigs, with cost of transport of 1 pig to out-of -the-island consumers at the level of 1/2 of pig value and ferry has limited capacity. Pork would be cheap there. In China they would get 5 times the price (like Americans for their LNG) but cannot transport the damn animals, and pigs do not fly.

I am talking about worldwide natural gas. China is more interested in natural gas fuel for transportation than Americans. They may end up leading in that field someday. The LNG pricing is very low, and they can get natural gas from all the sources I mentioned. Using natural gas rather than coal would greatly benefit them and they can even make it from the coal. Do you need clarification of this?

That little island you mentioned could use pig dung to make methane to cook the pork they raise. 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Grossly incorrect” depending on your personal bias...nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2020 at 3:07 PM, Ward Smith said:

Just wanted to tie up some loose ends from before

20141205_Concrete_FO.jpg

 

In the financial threads China is doing nothing... in the pollution threads they are doing everything.

Domestic concrete use is a great sign of infrastructure and economic development.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

 

In the financial threads China is doing nothing... in the pollution threads they are doing everything.

Domestic concrete use is a great sign of infrastructure and economic development.

 

 

The US used to seriously track Soviet concrete. Concrete is a great marker of activity. Then it was a way of approximating their efforts into hardening missile silos.  Then the USSR changed the game with mobile launchers. Improved accuracy on ICBM warheads pretty much made improved hardening a waste of time.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2020 at 6:09 PM, remake it said:

All you are doing is disagreeing with the US government's stance which you do when it suits you because you are unable to make a better case.

And here is the cumulative CO2 emissions chart again show the extent of denial that the US propagandizes into global warming

Cumulative co2 treemap

Incorrect. Here is the US stance:

2013  Report from the Congressional Research Service:
1. The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982.
2. The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
3. U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;
4. U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and
5. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled.

2016 (Dec 2nd) - Trump states the US is not bound by China's 'One China policy'

Feb 9th 2017 - Trump states for the sake of maintaining beneficial relations with the Chinese mainland, we will revert to our previous stance (aka, 2013 report above)

This is complicated by the fact that both Taiwan and the mainland both call themselves 'China'. Therefore it's easy to find references that China and Taiwan are 'One China' (point 2 above). The US acknowledges this position of both Taiwan and Mainland China. The US also refuses to say who is the ruler of that 'One China'. You are pulling quotes out of context to suggest that US Policy is what you want it to be, not what it actually is.

So no, I am not disagreeing with the US Government's Stance.

Again - your data is from 2017. I don't dispute that. The part you are missing is that CHINA PASSED THE US IN TOTAL EMISSIONS AT THE END OF 2018! (Possibly as late as early 2019, but until we get full data, we won't know the exact date. As of now in 2020 though, China has already passed the US in total emissions. No denial here. Just more up to date data than you're citing.)

On 1/16/2020 at 6:47 PM, Enthalpic said:

I thought trumps idea for the trade war was to bring manufacturing back to the states.  The deal was essentially just raw material exports (agriculture and energy). 

At least he won't have to keep buying farmers votes a.k.a. "federal aid for farmers."

Sucks for Canada as that is stuff we like to sell.

The idea was to stop the systematic and forced transfer of IP (as well as the violations of IP), as well as the other systematic violations of World Trade rules. President Trump's stance is that if you level the playing field for all parties, some manufacturing will return to the US.

Also note this is Phase 1. It was not meant to solve all problems, but rather test the waters to see if a larger agreement with enforcement mechanisms is even possible with China.

(Reading between the lines - we needed some calm before the election, so got enough concessions to appease the voter base and claim a small victory, and conceded enough to allow Xi to save face. Time out on hostilities until elections are over, then - if they've worked, great! Something to build off of. If not? Scrap it and start tensions again.)

On 1/16/2020 at 7:49 PM, remake it said:

You mean they similarly hate each other?

To be clear - I don't hate China - neither the people nor the country (I actually have huge respect for certain aspects). It's a beautiful land with very diverse landscape, climates, people, and cultures very rich in history. (I wouldn't have spent so much time studying something I hate... why do you think I know so much about China?)

The problems I have are:
1) I don't like misinformation - no matter the source. (Even the US government when it happens)
2) I disagree with the current direction of the Chinese Ruling party. I do not believe it's in the best interest of the world, nor the Chinese people themselves. It only benefits those in or very near to the ruling party. Sure, there are plenty of side benefits to trickle down to the little people now when times are good, but if this road continues, the populace will find themselves trapped by a government way to powerful for them to free themselves from, and will simply have to accept what they are given.

On 1/18/2020 at 6:58 PM, Marcin2 said:

Ron, not enough oil and natural gas on this planet for China.

Ask Douglas, Tom and other guys with oil&gas experience, how easy it would be to increase natural gas output by 1,500 billion m3 so China can get rid of coal. Building 50 LNG terminals on Chinese shores and laying net pipelines across Eurasia would be less complicated part of the solution.

It'll take 15 years, but I'm game! 

(Full disclosure, if China made a concentrated effort to 100% replace coal usage with natural gas, I stand to benefit hugely...)

Seriously though - from a supply perspective it wouldn't be too much of a problem. We have lots of NG that isn't being targeted for development because the associated gas from oil developments are likely sufficient for predicted demand. If demand forecasts rose dramatically, it would drive a (less dramatic, but still significant) increase in NG prices and drive development of these shelved projects.

Honestly the hardest part of this IMO would be getting pipelines from US fields to US shores due to the NIMBY and BNANA people. Thousands of miles of Russian/Chinese pipe? Easy. Just a logistics issue. 50 LNG Terminals on Chinese shores? Easy. Especially since their import terminals. 50 equivalent LNG Export terminals in Australia, ME, South America, the US and Canada? Harder - especially since we'd saturate certain suppliers, but not unreasonable. Increasing the production of NG worldwide - reasonably challenging, but very achievable. 

Piping from those most economic supplies and the LNG terminal locations - that's the problem.

On 1/18/2020 at 8:21 PM, Hotone said:

Pot calling a grey kettle blacker.  The US has been at war for 93% of its existence. There was only 21 years or of her existence where the US didn't kill other people.  

https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946

Intentionally misleading or terribly uninformed. By those metrics Present day China has been at war 100% of it's history... (ok, actually they didn't have a war in 1956 and 1957, so 98%?) it just doesn't admit it. Every European country is up there too... The problem is they've too broadly defined 'war'.

On 1/18/2020 at 9:36 PM, frankfurter said:

1/ Wikipedia is a poor source for historical information. It has been proven to spread falsehoods. 
2/ Tibet region has been populated by a mix of races for about 20,000 years, and has been under the control of various dynasties. From ca 600 to 1904, Tibet was under the rule of Chinese emperors. In 1903/4, Britain invaded Tibet, up to Lhasa. This culminated with a treaty between BRITAIN AND CHINA: NOT between Britain and Tibet. Ponder that for a moment. Why would Britain not sign with a Tibet? Answer: how can you sign with a non-entity? BRITAIN THUS RECOGNISED TIBET AS PART OF CHINA. The Treaty of 1904 included, inter alia, a provision that Tibet shall have no relations with any other other foreign powers (effectively converting Tibet into a British protectorate). The British then tried to carve up Tibet and give large parts to India. This action violated the Treaty and effectively voided it. When the British left India, China took back what Britain had stolen by force, and the rest is history.
3/ Vietnam. The USA started the Vietnam war by invasion. Somehow you hold China accountable for this?  Man, you are warped.
4/ Khmer Rouge. The founders of Khmer Rouge were VIETNAMESE. To infer China created this party is also warped.
5/ The Cambodian Civil War was a conflict that pitted the forces of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (known as the Khmer Rouge) and their allies the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Viet Cong against the government forces of the Kingdom of Cambodia and, after October 1970, the Khmer Republic, which were supported by the United States and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). China did not instigate this war. 
6/ Sikkim. Again, warped. China built roads and moved troops UP TO the border, NOT across the border. Why China cannot build a road in its own territory? Why the USA cannot build a wall on the border with Mexico?  Your inference is ludicrous. 
7/ We have never met. Yet, you are SURE I am a member of the CCP. Amazing. This is beyond bigotry. Ludicrous.

1) Eh, they're political, but in matters seen as non-political they're typically ok. Not going to argue here though as I don't disagree very strongly.
2)This was addressed in the China thread. It's a very complicated history that I believe shows Tibet was independent (as were Xin Jiang and a few others - which others depends on when you claim 'China' started). You can, however, show that Tibet was part of China from some instances. The thing you can't do, however, it put Xin Jiang, Tibet, Hainan, and Tawian all in the same China. It doesn't work. Doing so is intellectually dishonest at best. Or you have to admit that Italy has the right to conquer half of the Middle East and significant parts of the African North Coast. (Don't even start with other empires... If you want to start this, please reference the China thread. This was debated at length)
3)Um, no? If you want to blame the West at least get your facts correct and blame the French... but it was a proxy war of Russia/China vs the anti-communists. Who started it - being as neutral as possible - is reasonably debatable depending on where you place the 'inciting incident'. Vietnam was a French Colony. Vietnam (with Chinese encouragement) declared independence from France in 1945. France disagreed. Hence war started. Who's at fault? (oversimplification, but you get the idea)
4)Khmer Rouge - not going to open this can of worms, but do you honestly think any Communist country in a position to wouldn't have nurtured and supported them during the inception phase?
5) Same as above.
6)Sikkim - the problem was the border was disputed. They built to where China wanted the border to be. India contested that border, so by India's definition of the border that was an invasion. 
7) How is calling you a member of the CCP bigotry? Bad form, sure, but bigotry? Calm down.

Seriously Frankfurt - calling 0R0's presentation of information "Warped" is massively biased. If you disagree, ok, present your facts, but nothing he said is unsupportable by normal internationally recognized history.

On 1/18/2020 at 9:51 PM, frankfurter said:

Please do not spread lies.

Let's quote the article:  "CNEX co-founder Yiren “Ronnie” Huang, who quit Huawei and co-founded CNEX days later, breached his employment contract requiring him to notify the company of any patents he obtained within a year of leaving the firm. However, it did not award Huawei damages."  The jury found Huang guilty of breach of contract, and that breach was proof of theft, yet did not award damages.  This is a blatant contempt of US law.  The jury and court are thus nothing more than a kangaroo court. 

 

And you're calling other people's perceptions warped?

On 1/18/2020 at 9:54 PM, frankfurter said:

Note:  the "assurance" is offered by someone who claims Canada has "Prairies States".  

 

On 1/18/2020 at 9:56 PM, frankfurter said:

why the shithead response?  repeat: let's see your facts. thank you. 

Also calling out the personal attacks and lack of any rebuttal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you don't waste your time with Frankfurter. He is knowingly spewing communist talking points and defends the indefensible while attacking those who stood against it. 

I reject communisim, its basic premises, its ideas of governance and its goals. Doing the exact opposite of the communist dictats is the most useful human endeaor I could imagine. Hence I suspect anything said in support of communist actors and against those who opposed them.Frankfurter is using basic disinformation techniques to claim a moral high ground for communist China  and denigrate US actions to malevolent or criminal actions. 

The historical claims of a long defunct Chinese imperial court to any land mass is an incorrect view of history. China was the collection of crown properties controlled from his court, the geographical particulars of it varied. The sovereign was not "China" but the emperor, just as today the CCP owns the various provinces and claims that it is China. It is a conquering force the bears the same relationship to the provinces as did the Mongol Emperors, who ruled over the longest run of a "unified" China - two centuries. This is not Bismark assembling a unified Germany. This is simle military conquest by Mao and his band of warlords. The right of self determinaiton superseeds any historical claims including the unity of China. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you don't waste your time with Frankfurter. 0R0.  He is knowingly spewing communist fascist talking points and defends the indefensible, while attacking those who stood stand against it them. 

I reject communisim, fascism, its basic premises, its ideas of governance and its goals. Doing the exact opposite of the communist dictats fascist dictates is the most useful human endeaor endeavour I could imagine. Hence I suspect anything said in support of communist fascists actors and against those who opposed oppose them. Frankfurter 0R0 is using basic disinformation techniques to claim a moral high ground for communist China  fascist America and denigrate US China actions to malevolent or criminal actions. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

0R0 believes he and his fellow 'murcans have a God-given right to bomb, invade, occupy, carve up, plillage and plunder other countries and slaughter those citizens by the hundreds of thousands, at will. That is his moral high-ground, and he attacks any and all who have opposing views and different morals. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2020 at 11:39 AM, Enthalpic said:

 

In the financial threads China is doing nothing... in the pollution threads they are doing everything.

Domestic concrete use is a great sign of infrastructure and economic development.

 

 

Not really. It depends on what is actually being done with the concrete. Building cities which nobody lives in is not the most effective infrastructure project (for example).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Otus11.  re Vietnam.  Agree with your point.  To elaborate...

For 2000 years, pre-1860, the Vietnamese people were self-ruled, independent. From ca 1860 to 1945, Vietnam was brutally occupied by the French as a colony under complete, apartheid rule of France. The French slaughtered the locals by the thousands; denuded large sections of forests for tobacco and other plantations using the locals as slaves; tried to re-engineer the local society by forcing their children to learn a foreign language, eat foreign food, accept a foreign religion, accept a foreign currency, and attend indoctrination schools. A famine instigated by the French caused the death of 2 million Vietnamese. The locals resented [any wonder?] and fought a 10-year guerrilla war to drive out the invaders and regain their country and identity. [what indoctrinated, dumbed-down, westerners call a war for independence]. They succeeded, largely, in the northern region. 

By 1954, the 'country' became divided politically between north and south. The Soviets supported the north: the French & Americans the south. The US invasion, continuing war and atrocities are documented elsewhere. The Americans withdrew in defeat by 1976. Today, Vietnam is at peace with a communistic government, and without foreign occupation. [just imagine: the communists brought peace]. 

What had the Americans accomplished?  Nothing but murder and devastation. In 1945, Vietnam was trending to communism, and later became a fully independent, communist country after 1976 up to today. This is by the acceptance of the people themselves. Thousands of American young men died: countless thousands of Vietnamese died. The 30 years of bloodshed was for nothing but to satisfy the psychopaths in Washington.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Not really. It depends on what is actually being done with the concrete. Building cities which nobody lives in is not the most effective infrastructure project (for example).

Pretty sure that is just N.K. not China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Not really. It depends on what is actually being done with the concrete. Building cities which nobody lives in is not the most effective infrastructure project (for example).

True. Large areas of bare lands were paved over and 'developed' into residential areas. To call them 'cities' is a misnomer.  Also, what the western media depicts is lies mixed with truths, ie propaganda.

These were not central government projects per se: they were projects by independent contractors, financed by the commercial banks, and approved by local governments. These were commercial ventures: the contractors expected fully to reap great profits from private citizens. At the time they were built, corruption was very extensive, and thus we can say the local and regional governments turned a blind eye. In the short term, the areas did not attract residents [who had to pay for the units with private capital and finance] and thus stood empty.  Many contractors went bankrupt, banks collapsed, officials were sacked and some imprisoned, people lost their jobs, and everything associated became a target of the national anti-corruption drive.  But the money is not wasted: the buildings are inhabitable and are being inhabited over time. In the long term, these so-called ghost towns are expected to be inhabited.

The western propaganda broadly paints the picture as a failed government policy.  This is incorrect.  The facts are this is a misapplication of funds: overly enthusiastic speculation, combined with local corruption, combined with bankers indoctrinated to view real estate as a fail-safe investment [think USA sub-prime mortgages], combined with a GDP growing at +20% yearly, combined with the jobs and resulting economic activity, and the entire system is thus geared to make a few mistakes. In the world's 3rd largest country, most populated at 1.4bn, have the world's 2nd highest GDP, etc, etc, these ghost towns are pin-head aberrations and now are slowly and steadily being resolved. 

One thing is certain:  whoever buys a residence, gets a modern abode at a very small fraction of the price in Shanghai.  What the developers lost, the consumers gained.  Is this not the way of the west, too?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“From ca 1860 to 1945, Vietnam was brutally occupied by the French as a colony undercomplete, apartheid rule of France.”

Really? I thought that the Japanese were somehow involved in Vietnam in the Second World War....but I could be wrong.

Furthermore, the Yanks were out of Vietnam before 1976.

Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“One thing is certain:  whoever buys a residence, gets a modern abode at a very small fraction of the price in Shanghai.  What the developers lost, the consumers gained.  Is this not the way of the west, too?“

There is absolutely no way that these empty cities were strictly ‘commercial’ ventures! Massive projects such as these, requiring huge tracts of land, utilizing massive amounts of resources and labor IN A COMMUNIST COUNTRY, could not possibly have been pursued as a commercial venture.

Furthermore, where would a strictly mommercial venture get financing for a city which would remain vacant for years?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Pretty sure that is just N.K. not China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, frankfurter said:

These were not central government projects per se: they were projects by independent contractors, financed by the commercial banks, and approved by local governments. These were commercial ventures: the contractors expected fully to reap great profits from private citizens. At the time they were built, corruption was very extensive, and thus we can say the local and regional governments turned a blind eye

I find this extremely hard to believe as @Douglas Buckland has noted these ventures would require huge investment and agreement with local government for the land and surrounding infrastructure. Please provide details of who these "independent" contractors are/were.Why would banks finance these projects where there is no evidence of any return (ie nobody is living in them and paying rent). In my experience commercial banks aren't stupid and need a pretty watertight business plan with projected returns over a specific time-frame in order to invest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Marcin2 - They invade the country together or one of them individually, what is more suitable at the moment, if it is election year in US it is China invading, if new President needs to "prove" himself it is United States invading.

Sorry, let me clarify - a negative vote by any of the permanent members will block the adoption of the draft resolution. Security Council decisions (other than procedural) require 9 out of 15 votes, including the vote of all permanent members.
Veto
According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council cannot take any decisions on non-procedural issues if it voted against the use of the so-called veto right (lat. Veto - I object, prohibit) at least one of the permanent members.

Direct US military conflict is disadvantageous. First, the US does not have the resources for such a war: Financial, temporary, logistical, and most importantly military, in military force (3:1))) [there is no advantage in the BRSD, in the number of ships in the fleet, in the ANPA (autonomous uninhabited vehicles - CSG (Carrier Strike Group) sink instantly) and in the air, Chinese are not Indians - they have Space force, Aerospace & Missile defense, Electronic warfare, temporary, logistics. I would like to note that Russia is China's strategic partner). Second, the US will fall into the Thucydides trap, which will please the Russian Federation.

Sorry for my bad English, is terrible.

With respect

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor