Child slavery in china

Live forum: http://forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=64769

JUNIOR6886

18-06-2007 04:55:25

http//www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK22844720070615?sp=true

BEIJING (Reuters) - As many as 1,000 children may have been sold into slave labor in central China, enduring maiming and brutality in primitive brick kilns, state media said on Friday amid an expanding scandal about official neglect.

The owners ran the prison-like kilns in Shanxi and Henan provinces with fierce dogs and thugs who beat the children at will, state television said. One accidentally killed a child with a shovel and buried the body at night, it said.

The workers, mostly young males, some of whom were kidnapped from around the country, were shown on television sleeping on bricks inside the brickworks with doors sealed from outside with wire and windows barred to prevent their escape.

Some had horrific, festering wounds on their black feet and around their waist, presumably from burns from the kiln.

"We wanted to run but we couldn't," one disheveled worker was quoted as saying. "I tried once and was beaten."

An army of 35,000 police in central China had so far rescued 468 people after checking 7,500 kilns, Xinhua news agency said.

As many as 120 suspects had been arrested.

"Our conservative estimate is that at least 1,000 minors from Henan have been trapped and cheated into back-breaking work in these Shanxi brick kilns," a reporter from Henan said on the current affairs program Oriental Horizon.

The program showed workers who had recently been rescued -- ragged, emaciated and mute and some bearing injuries.

Xinhu said Yang Aizhi, a 46-year-old mother, was one of the people who alerted the public to the scandal.

Her 16-year-old son went missing on March 8 and she heard that he might have been kidnapped and forced to work at a kiln.








and this is supposed to be the future #1 superpower in the world?
ugh.... truly disgusting (

tinkerjenn

18-06-2007 04:58:11

What gets me is they have now changed their international adoption policy making it near impossible to adopt from there. They have literally THOUSANDS of children in orphanages who will now probably live most of their lives there.

TryinToGetPaid

18-06-2007 05:07:36

My mom was trying to get a girl from China - because they no likey el girls.

Tholek

18-06-2007 05:09:26

They have nukes. A lot of them. (

good2speed

18-06-2007 08:24:11

[quote8646ff08a9="JUNIOR6886"]
and this is supposed to be the future #1 superpower in the world?
ugh.... truly disgusting ([/quote8646ff08a9]

every superpower has benefited from slavery at some point. Its how nations are built on the cheap. Dont forget America was built on slavery.

wasabe

18-06-2007 10:34:40

We still have similar problems in the US[=http//www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2007/82811.htm]in the US[quote4298570c43]The United States is a source and destination country for thousands of men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual and labor exploitation. Women and girls, largely from East Asia, Eastern Europe, Mexico and Central America are trafficked to the United States into prostitution. Some men and women, responding to fraudulent offers of employment in the United States, migrate willingly-legally and illegally-but are subsequently subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude at work sites or in the commercial sex trade. An unknown number of American citizens and legal residents are trafficked within the country primarily for sexual servitude and, to a lesser extent, forced labor.[/quote4298570c43]

ilanbg

18-06-2007 10:48:29

Sex slaves are different from other slaves.... it's not really comparable.

MyungChunHa

18-06-2007 12:36:27

[quote9cf953aa7a="good2speed"][quote9cf953aa7a="JUNIOR6886"]
and this is supposed to be the future #1 superpower in the world?
ugh.... truly disgusting ([/quote9cf953aa7a]

every superpower has benefited from slavery at some point. Its how nations are built on the cheap. Dont forget America was built on slavery.[/quote9cf953aa7a]
I don't know much about the problems that China's facing right now, but I do know that a lot of people hate all Chinese people and it doesn't seem fair to me....Seems more racist than anything, and people just need somebody to hate and blame.

People talk of the Chinese as if they were dirt, when not all Chinese are involved in crap like this, every race has their low points and high points, why people focus on things like this is beyond me.

JUNIOR6886

18-06-2007 13:51:09

[quotee5b774e85a="MyungChunHa"][quotee5b774e85a="good2speed"][quotee5b774e85a="JUNIOR6886"]
and this is supposed to be the future #1 superpower in the world?
ugh.... truly disgusting ([/quotee5b774e85a]

every superpower has benefited from slavery at some point. Its how nations are built on the cheap. Dont forget America was built on slavery.[/quotee5b774e85a]
I don't know much about the problems that China's facing right now, but I do know that a lot of people hate all Chinese people and it doesn't seem fair to me....Seems more racist than anything, and people just need somebody to hate and blame.

People talk of the Chinese as if they were dirt, when not all Chinese are involved in crap like this, every race has their low points and high points, why people focus on things like this is beyond me.[/quotee5b774e85a]

the more i read about China the less i like. I dont have a problem with chinese people its their oppressive government that repulsive.

http//www.zefrank.com/theshow/gallery/d/8604-1/tiananmen-square-tanks.jpg[" alt=""/imge5b774e85a]

good2speed

18-06-2007 14:09:59

ya -1 for communism. I like people from China though. )

mikedb

18-06-2007 16:48:19

It sometimes surprises me how shortsighted we can be with respect to developing countries going through their own industrial revolutions. It should be noted that events like this were not too uncommon a few hundred years ago around here, and especially in Europe.

I honestly think that the best thing that could happen in Africa, for example, is a strong sweatshop industry, combined with stable governments- time and time again we have seen cheap labour be the beginning of a strong economy.

JUNIOR6886

18-06-2007 18:26:35

[quotee1250ed978="mikedb"]It sometimes surprises me how shortsighted we can be with respect to developing countries going through their own industrial revolutions. It should be noted that events like this were not too uncommon a few hundred years ago around here, and especially in Europe.

I honestly think that the best thing that could happen in Africa is a strong sweatshop industry, combined with stable governments- time and time again we have seen cheap labour be the beginning of a strong economy.[/quotee1250ed978]

I dont see how this can be justified by saying the same shit happened hundreds of years ago

Based on China's GDP and the rate of their economic growth, can you really call it a 3rd world country?
This isnt like the industrial revolution in america where people were getting shit wages. These are kids being kidnapped and being forced into slavery.
Thirdly this kinda stuff is ALREADY happening in Africa.

mikedb

18-06-2007 19:11:56

I should have stated before that my statements were mostly blanket statements, and not necessarily directly in response to the article. I do believe that what has happened is wrong and unjustifiable.

With a few rare exceptions, every 1st world country has gone through a stage of industrialization, or an industrial revolution. When you look back to the state of things a few hundred years ago in Europe, they parallel what is going on now in China. The fact of the matter is that it is almost impossible for any country to go from a third world country to a first world country overnight. There is a painful period of oppression, etc. before any country can become modern and industrialized.

China is also a very varied nation, with the pacific rim parts possessing more wealth, and the inner parts being very very poor. It is very likely this story deals with a poorer area.

gnznroses

18-06-2007 20:03:08

[quoteb74340f81f="JUNIOR6886"]
An army of 35,000 police in central China had so far rescued 468 people after checking 7,500 kilns, Xinhua news agency said.

As many as 120 suspects had been arrested.
[/quoteb74340f81f]

only the chinese govt is allowed to lock (tens or hundreds of) thousands of men/women/children into forced labor camps.....

wasabe

18-06-2007 22:34:15

[quote74bfb366be="gnznroses"][quote74bfb366be="JUNIOR6886"]
An army of 35,000 police in central China had so far rescued 468 people after checking 7,500 kilns, Xinhua news agency said.

As many as 120 suspects had been arrested.
[/quote74bfb366be]

only the chinese govt is allowed to lock (tens or hundreds of) thousands of men/women/children into forced labor camps.....[/quote74bfb366be]
Yeah, they heard about these unauthorized labor camps and they were all "Dey took our jerbs!"

MyungChunHa

19-06-2007 05:39:58

[quoteae70d9b84b="JUNIOR6886"][quoteae70d9b84b="MyungChunHa"][quoteae70d9b84b="good2speed"][quoteae70d9b84b="JUNIOR6886"]
and this is supposed to be the future #1 superpower in the world?
ugh.... truly disgusting ([/quoteae70d9b84b]

every superpower has benefited from slavery at some point. Its how nations are built on the cheap. Dont forget America was built on slavery.[/quoteae70d9b84b]
I don't know much about the problems that China's facing right now, but I do know that a lot of people hate all Chinese people and it doesn't seem fair to me....Seems more racist than anything, and people just need somebody to hate and blame.

People talk of the Chinese as if they were dirt, when not all Chinese are involved in crap like this, every race has their low points and high points, why people focus on things like this is beyond me.[/quoteae70d9b84b]

the more i read about China the less i like. I dont have a problem with chinese people its their oppressive government that repulsive.[/quoteae70d9b84b]
I know exactly where your coming from...If you ever go on Netscape.com, which I don't recommend, they are basically all racist....Many saying that the Chinese are worthless and are ruining our country, blah, blah, blah....It irks me how people are so easily manipulated and can't see past their own backyards to realize what's really going on here.

It just annoys me how they seemingly use horrible things like this as an excuse to hate an entire people

aviendha47

19-06-2007 14:31:09

[quote31c2122c26="MyungChunHa"][quote31c2122c26="JUNIOR6886"][quote31c2122c26="MyungChunHa"][quote31c2122c26="good2speed"][quote31c2122c26="JUNIOR6886"]
and this is supposed to be the future #1 superpower in the world?
ugh.... truly disgusting ([/quote31c2122c26]

every superpower has benefited from slavery at some point. Its how nations are built on the cheap. Dont forget America was built on slavery.[/quote31c2122c26]
I don't know much about the problems that China's facing right now, but I do know that a lot of people hate all Chinese people and it doesn't seem fair to me....Seems more racist than anything, and people just need somebody to hate and blame.

People talk of the Chinese as if they were dirt, when not all Chinese are involved in crap like this, every race has their low points and high points, why people focus on things like this is beyond me.[/quote31c2122c26]

the more i read about China the less i like. I dont have a problem with chinese people its their oppressive government that repulsive.[/quote31c2122c26]
I know exactly where your coming from...If you ever go on Netscape.com, which I don't recommend, they are basically all racist....Many saying that the Chinese are worthless and are ruining our country, blah, blah, blah....It irks me how people are so easily manipulated and can't see past their own backyards to realize what's really going on here.

It just annoys me how they seemingly use horrible things like this as an excuse to hate an entire people[/quote31c2122c26]


Mass racism, not good. It seems too easy for people to ignore the good in other people no matter what the race, at least respect fellow humans.

skepticalcynic

19-06-2007 20:43:59

[bb53337bc02]Over the past few years, many people in the southern US have been arrested, tried, and/or convicted on charges of slavery. Several have been prominent business and political leaders in their communities.[/bb53337bc02]

Slave traders go to Mexico offering jobs, documentation and transportation into the US for anyone who wants it. The only requirement is that the people either have to have no family, or they have to bring their entire family with them (so there is no one left to miss them). The slavers then bring the Mexicans into the South illegally (obviously), and make them live in very crowded, filthy conditions. Men, women and children work from sunup to sundown - children do not attend school and those too young to work without causing suspicion are kept at "home". Transportation to and from the fields is via the "master's" bus and the slaves are forbidden to go anywhere. These "slave owners" do all the shopping for these people and collect their pay from the employers. They then give a few pennies - literally a few U.S. one-cent pieces - to the Mexicans for their week's work in the hot sun. Unless the slaves are sent back to Mexico or sold to another slave trader, they NEVER have the opportunity to get out of this nightmare.

Anyone still want to pretend that Americans are on a moral high-ground?

doylnea

19-06-2007 21:19:28

[quote7d81ebc069="Tholek"]They have nukes. A lot of them. ([/quote7d81ebc069]

Comparatively, they have very few nuclear weapons (~140 off the top of my head) and have a declared (and ingrained) no-first use policy. They have the fewest of the five large nuclear weapons states (US, UK, Russia, France and China). I would be much more worried about their labor, and copyright policies before their nuclear weapons.

Tholek

19-06-2007 22:25:32

[quote9e774b536d="doylnea"][quote9e774b536d="Tholek"]They have nukes. A lot of them. ([/quote9e774b536d]

Comparatively, they have very few nuclear weapons (~140 off the top of my head) and have a declared (and ingrained) no-first use policy. They have the fewest of the five large nuclear weapons states (US, UK, Russia, France and China). I would be much more worried about their labor, and copyright policies before their nuclear weapons.[/quote9e774b536d]

I merely mentioned it as reason why we don't treat them as we may a African or Middle Eastern nation. Such things happen there as well, and nothing really stops us from intervening if we wished.

I'm surprised that the UK and France has more ICBMs than China. Do you have something showing that? It's news to me. I thought they even had more than Russia since the Soviet breakup.

doylnea

19-06-2007 22:58:34

[quote6e443e382d="Tholek"][quote6e443e382d="doylnea"][quote6e443e382d="Tholek"]They have nukes. A lot of them. ([/quote6e443e382d]

Comparatively, they have very few nuclear weapons (~140 off the top of my head) and have a declared (and ingrained) no-first use policy. They have the fewest of the five large nuclear weapons states (US, UK, Russia, France and China). I would be much more worried about their labor, and copyright policies before their nuclear weapons.[/quote6e443e382d]

I'm surprised that the UK and France has more ICBMs than China. Do you have something showing that? It's news to me. I thought they even had more than Russia since the Soviet breakup.[/quote6e443e382d]

The ICBM is what carries the payload (nuclear weapon device). The US has a stockpile of ~9K weapons, Russia has ~16K (though I don't know where both countries stand with dismantlement (so it may be more or less) (Russia has all of the former Soviet states' weapons (though not nuclear material))), France has ~350. and the UK has ~200. FWIW, even though Russia has 1/3 more than the US, the first strike capabilities of the US are way better than Russia's right now for a variety of reasons.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (publishers of the Doomsday clock) are good top-level sources for most facts like this. They had a whole series on the nuclear weapons states about 2 years ago.

/threadjack

JUNIOR6886

20-06-2007 04:34:49

[quote1943100ed7="skepticalcynic"][b1943100ed7]Over the past few years, many people in the southern US have been arrested, tried, and/or convicted on charges of slavery. Several have been prominent business and political leaders in their communities.[/b1943100ed7]

Slave traders go to Mexico offering jobs, documentation and transportation into the US for anyone who wants it. The only requirement is that the people either have to have no family, or they have to bring their entire family with them (so there is no one left to miss them). The slavers then bring the Mexicans into the South illegally (obviously), and make them live in very crowded, filthy conditions. Men, women and children work from sunup to sundown - children do not attend school and those too young to work without causing suspicion are kept at "home". Transportation to and from the fields is via the "master's" bus and the slaves are forbidden to go anywhere. These "slave owners" do all the shopping for these people and collect their pay from the employers. They then give a few pennies - literally a few U.S. one-cent pieces - to the Mexicans for their week's work in the hot sun. Unless the slaves are sent back to Mexico or sold to another slave trader, they NEVER have the opportunity to get out of this nightmare.

Anyone still want to pretend that Americans are on a moral high-ground?[/quote1943100ed7]

They're offered illegal transportation to the US and jobs. They take the bait and when they get here well.... suprise slavery. Maybe they shouldve just gone through the proper process of being legal productive citizens. I wont get into it much since the whole immigration thing calls for another thread but I dont really feel sorry for them. Its hardly the same thing as whats happening in China in the article....

[quote1943100ed7="Tholek"]
we may a African or Middle Eastern nation. Such things happen there as well, and nothing really stops us from intervening if we wished. [/quote1943100ed7]

Yeah this wouldnt be thread worthy if this happened in Africa or somewhere comparable. "ZOMG slavery in Africa" would just look naive

gnznroses

20-06-2007 09:29:45

[quote4352479bb9="doylnea"][quote4352479bb9="Tholek"]They have nukes. A lot of them. ([/quote4352479bb9]

Comparatively, they have very few nuclear weapons (~140 off the top of my head) and [b4352479bb9]have a declared (and ingrained) no-first use policy[/b4352479bb9]. They have the fewest of the five large nuclear weapons states (US, UK, Russia, France and China). I would be much more worried about their labor, and copyright policies before their nuclear weapons.[/quote4352479bb9]

eh, i dunno where you heard that. it's actually the exact opposite. China and Russia both.
i could dig up the quotes from the book about China i've been reading. they've said it publicly, and they even sent the US a very long document about what would happen if we interfere with them attacking Taiwan and the say straight out that they would attack us with nukes.
their military policy states that they will attack first to gain surprise (what they call "active defense"), and that they'll use "super-weapons" to knock the enemy out "with one blow".
they've threated the mainland of the US as well threated to use tactical nukes on our carrier group in the region, or on US bases stationed in Japan and elsewhere.

China and Russia are going to be a serious threat in the years ahead. they have a "strategic alliance" and have said many times that their goal is to shift the "world order" to put themselves on top. they oppose the US in the UN and wherever they can.
China claims ownership not just of taiwan but the entire East China Sea - where over half of the world's goods are shipped through.
i could list a hundred things that china is and has been doing that we should be concerned about, and that the govt knows about, but we're not doing jack. we've given them everything they want and not got a thing in return. the clinton administration was the worst by far.

doylnea

20-06-2007 10:14:02

[quote2c363ec9a7="gnznroses"][quote2c363ec9a7="doylnea"][quote2c363ec9a7="Tholek"]They have nukes. A lot of them. ([/quote2c363ec9a7]

Comparatively, they have very few nuclear weapons (~140 off the top of my head) and [b2c363ec9a7]have a declared (and ingrained) no-first use policy[/b2c363ec9a7]. They have the fewest of the five large nuclear weapons states (US, UK, Russia, France and China). I would be much more worried about their labor, and copyright policies before their nuclear weapons.[/quote2c363ec9a7]

eh, i dunno where you heard that. it's actually the exact opposite. China and Russia both.
i could dig up the quotes from the book about China i've been reading. they've said it publicly, and they even sent the US a very long document about what would happen if we interfere with them attacking Taiwan and the say straight out that they would attack us with nukes.
their military policy states that they will attack first to gain surprise (what they call "active defense"), and that they'll use "super-weapons" to knock the enemy out "with one blow".
they've threated the mainland of the US as well threated to use tactical nukes on our carrier group in the region, or on US bases stationed in Japan and elsewhere.

China and Russia are going to be a serious threat in the years ahead. they have a "strategic alliance" and have said many times that their goal is to shift the "world order" to put themselves on top. they oppose the US in the UN and wherever they can.
China claims ownership not just of taiwan but the entire East China Sea - where over half of the world's goods are shipped through.
i could list a hundred things that china is and has been doing that we should be concerned about, and that the govt knows about, but we're not doing jack. we've given them everything they want and not got a thing in return. the clinton administration was the worst by far.[/quote2c363ec9a7]
I'm not going to argue with you. Your information with regard to China's nuclear policy is inaccurate, biased, outdated, or just plain wrong.

For the most recent academic and impartial review of China's nuclear weapons policy, read [i2c363ec9a7]The Minimum Means of Reprisal.[/i2c363ec9a7]

But, humor me, post links to the facts your cite in your post, starting with a link to a government document from China where the Chinese government (not some nutjob military leader) states "if we interfere with them attacking Taiwan and the say straight out that they would attack us with nukes." Because, of course we all know that China keeps their nuclear weapons and delivery systems separate, and China arming, let alone firing a weapon requires the sign-off of disparate government committees.

gnznroses

20-06-2007 20:23:26

i'll hafta work on that tomorrow or something.
i did a little bit of searching just now and i found a page that mentions and quotes from the "white paper" that china published. i'll hafta find more of the excerpts from my book tho
http//63.123.226.152/crm/crm105.htm
(rest of the site http//63.123.226.152/crm/)

i MAY have gotten china and russia a bit confused, as this book is about 2/3 china and 1/3 russia, and russia definitely has a first-strike-against-anyone policy. but i definitely remember china at least saying they think it is best to strike first with non-nuclear weapons. i'd have to check about the nuclear issue and make sure i'm not confusing it with russia.

in any case, china has threated us, taiwan, japan, and anyone else they claim is interfering with their business (they also claim that japan belongs to them and that their peace treaty with japan is invalid).

they are really good at doing one thing and saying another and convincing others' that they're not how they are. i recall a poll recently in europe that showed europeans (or brtions, or whever it was) havea more favorable opinion of china than of the US. i also recall debates i've had with people in europe who swear that china has really changed in respects of human rights, etc.
there are lots of interesting quotes in that book from chinese offials who talk about "seducing with money and intimidating with force". and about how war with the US is inevitable but how they believe they can defeat us because the american public (and democracy as a whole) won't allow people to die before protesting the war, and how we wouldn't interfere in taiwan because we "care more about Los Angelos than [we] do Beijing" (in a reference to nuclear weapons).

since the early or mid 90s the CIA has issued a yearly report to congress which consistently names china as the number one proliferator of WMDs (i thought that was a recent phrase, but it's not), even tho they have signed numerous treaties about not selling nuclear/biological/chemical weapons.

i could go on and on, and even before reading the book (not done yet tho) i've been saying i expect it'll come to head within a decade, and i do believe that. russia and china have a military pact and it'll be the NATO countries against them (and north korea, who will attack SK, while china is dealing with taiwan and we're dealing with them)

MyungChunHa

21-06-2007 05:13:33

[quote1edc5123dc="gnznroses"]they are really good at doing one thing and saying another and convincing others' that they're not how they are. i recall a poll recently in europe that showed europeans (or brtions, or whever it was) havea more favorable opinion of china than of the US. i also recall debates i've had with people in europe who swear that china has really changed in respects of human rights, etc. [/quote1edc5123dc]
How do you know that the Europeans aren't right and your "sources" are lying. It goes both ways in terms of manipulation, it's very hard to determine what is fully fact and what's being said as a cover-up (which is a lot of what is said to the general public).

All I'm saying is that, if you don't believe something that was said on one side, logically, you must treat the opposing side equally in terms of trust. Many people hear one side and stick to it because it's easier to do that then researching another account. I'm sure that there is another side to it as well.

tinkerjenn

21-06-2007 05:24:16

I don't hate all Chinese people. BUT as far aqs what their government does, I only have one word.

Darfur.

JUNIOR6886

21-06-2007 06:55:17

[quotef77fc77b3d="gnznroses"]
they are really good at doing one thing and saying another and convincing others' that they're not how they are. i recall a poll recently in europe that showed europeans (or brtions, or whever it was) have a more favorable opinion of china than of the US. i also recall debates i've had with people in europe who swear that china has really changed in respects of human rights, etc.
there are lots of interesting quotes in that book from chinese offials who talk about "seducing with money and intimidating with force". and about how war with the US is inevitable but how they believe they can defeat us because the american public (and democracy as a whole) won't allow people to die before protesting the war, and how we wouldn't interfere in taiwan because we "care more about Los Angelos than [we] do Beijing" (in a reference to nuclear weapons).
[/quotef77fc77b3d]

couldnt agree more with this part http//forum.freeipodguide.com/smilies_mod/upload/38bffac037babfdd251f0f3812a00258.gif[" alt=""/imgf77fc77b3d]

good2speed

21-06-2007 08:46:21

Russia and China do not have any kind of pact and are actually at odds with one another. They are suspicious of one another and the only thing they share is a common dislike for the US. Sorry for wikipedia but

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

[quoted9e46175d5]
Most of the problems regarding communist unity resulted from the death of Stalin and his replacement by Khrushchev. Stalin had established himself as the successor of "correct" Marxist thought well before Mao controlled the Communist Party of China, and therefore Mao never challenged the suitability of any Stalinist doctrine (at least while Stalin was alive). Upon the death of Stalin, Mao believed (perhaps because of seniority) that the leadership of the "correct" Marxist doctrine would fall to him. The resulting tension between Khrushchev (at the head of a politically/militarily superior government), and Mao (believing he had a superior understanding of Marxist ideology) eroded the previous patron-client relationship between the USSR and CPC.[/quoted9e46175d5]

Basically Russia and China have been at odds ever since.

Also the threat of China using nukes on us is inaccurate since they are still a nation-state and would not want total annihilation which would happen if they even dared attack us. This policy(Mutual assurred destruction) has been in place since the start of the Cold War and has proven to be an effective deterrent to any nation pursuing a nuclear attack on America.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction

[quoted9e46175d5]
The doctrine assumes that each side has enough weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction. It is now generally assumed that the nuclear fallout or nuclear winter resulting from a large scale nuclear war would bring about worldwide devastation, though this was not a critical assumption to the theory of MAD.

The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (second strike) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace.

The primary application of this doctrine started during the Cold War (1950s to 1990s) in which MAD was seen as helping to prevent any direct full-scale conflicts between the two power blocs while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world. It was also responsible for the arms race, as both nations struggled to keep nuclear parity, or at least retain second-strike capability. Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s and as of 2007 the US and Russia (former USSR) are on relatively cordial terms, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction certainly continues to be in force although it has receded from public discourse.
[/quoted9e46175d5]

gnznroses

21-06-2007 09:36:28

during the Mao years they were at odds. they are not now.

i'll be lazy and use wikipedia ;)
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China-Russia_Relations#A_strategic_alliance

[quote7bb408d504]Sino-Russian Relations refers to the relations between China and Russia. Sino-Russian relations trace back to the late Ming Dynasty and early Tsarist Russia in Chinese and Russian history, and underwent many changes throughout the centuries, especially during the twentieth century. The People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation currently maintain exceptionally close and friendly diplomatic relations, strong geopolitical and regional cooperation, and significant levels of trade.[/quote7bb408d504]


[quote7bb408d504]A strategic alliance
In 2001, the close relations between the two countries were formalized with the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, a twenty-year strategic, economic, and controversially, (arguably) an implicit military treaty. A month before the treaty was signed, the two countries joined with junior partners Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The PRC is currently Russia's largest customer of imports needed to modernize the People's Liberation Army, and the foremost benefactor of the under construction Russian Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean oil pipeline.
[/quote7bb408d504]


Russia sell china TONS of weapons because it both helps the russian economy and helps china strengthen it's military.
you can google around for some info but they have announced publicly and signed treaties stating that they have formed an alliance and their goal is basically to oppose the US in any way they can.

doylnea

21-06-2007 10:06:37

There's nothing in the NPT that forbids the sale of conventional weapons. You can be damn sure that China is not officially buying nuclear weapons from Russia (though they've likely bought technology from Russia, and sold nuclear technology throughout the world).

good2speed

21-06-2007 13:02:55

[quote73c7d266c6="gnznroses"]

[/quote73c7d266c6]

lol. I was thinking of possible counter arguments to them not having an alliance. I fail at that since they do indeed have a pact.

I would still deem their 'friendship' as mandated by the global environment however. The Chinese have been very suspicious of their russian counter part since the days of Mao. Many Chinese believe that while they enjoyed similar ideologies they were still viewed as inferior by the Soviets. Even from policy standpoints the USSr tried to intimidate the Chinese. I still believe that any improved relations are still met with suspicion by the chinese. I doubt they have forgiven so easily. The Chinese and Russian pact is as solid as a wet paper bag as it only exists due to a common enemy.

I thought of reasons why they would agree to a pact.

1. Militarily align against the 1 superpower remaining. Again they have a common enemy to battle.
2. Economic alignment to battle EU and US dollar
3 Personal Economic trade
4. Force their geopolitical will in all of Asia

I went on to read their pact and found )

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Good-Neighborliness_and_Friendly_Cooperation_Between_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_and_the_Russian_Federation

[quote73c7d266c6]
Analysts have attributed the motives behind, and perceived mutual benefit of, the FCT to several factors.

China
[/color73c7d266c6]
li China aims to produce more advanced technology, as opposed to a continued reliance on "Made in China," light consumer goods. This process can be accelerated with Russian training and technology.

li China wishes to develop and modernize its armed forces, much of which remain outdated. This process can be accelerated with Russian military training and technology.

[b73c7d266c6] li China wants to obtain a stable, consistent and affordable level of fuel shipments, especially petroleum. This goal can be better met with purchases and delivery of Russian oil, including the construction of a Trans-Siberian oil pipeline.

li China wishes to attain support for its stance on Taiwan.[/b73c7d266c6]

Russia
[/color73c7d266c6]
li [b73c7d266c6]Russia strives to obtain sources of capital, which it is in need of following severe losses to international speculators during the process of Soviet dissolution[/b73c7d266c6]. This effort can be significantly aided through the use of Chinese capital. Accordingly

li Russia wants to find sources of employment for its skilled workforce.

li [b73c7d266c6]Russia wants to sell its military technology and expertise.[/b73c7d266c6]

li [b73c7d266c6]Russia wants to sell its large reserves of petroleum and natural gas.[/b73c7d266c6]

Fear of US encirclement[/color73c7d266c6]

[b73c7d266c6]Both the PRC and Russia fear an encroachment by the United States (especially following its strengthened geopolitical position following the September 11, 2001 attacks) involving areas which they view as belonging to their respective spheres of national influences and interest[/b73c7d266c6]s for the PRC, this largely involves Taiwan serving as a US client state, while for Russia it involves having various former Soviet Republics as US client states. Many of these do not border either country, though Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan border the PRC, whereas Kazakhstan borders both.

Economic competition with the US, Japan and the EU[/color73c7d266c6]

The United States, Japan and the European Union are three economic powers who possess a skilled workforce and access to capital.[b73c7d266c6] Russia and the PRC can more effectively compete against these powers in the world economy, with Russia given access to Chinese capital and China given access to Russian training and technology.[/b73c7d266c6][/quote73c7d266c6]

There pact is paper thin and it only exitss because of current world conditions. Point being if they could avoid aligning with one another they would. Even if they succeded in a war against the US they would then go on to annihilate each other for world dominance.