Hacker News Reader

Comment by dccoolgai | Hacker News Reader

This dynamic has always frightened me about China's "one child" generation coming of age. Instead of a group of disaffected Jihadists, you have a large and influential political force in an increasingly belligerent and powerful nation.

View on HN

> increasingly belligerent

I'd argue that China's belligerence is lower now than it has been. They've moved from a very communist that strongly distrusted and arguably even hated the West, to a semi-capitalist one who mostly just wants to compete with the West (and makes oodles of $$$ selling to us).

The US has been drum-beating against China a lot recently, but frankly that seems more about the US losing in the "trade wars" than anything specific China did.

I think (may not be) he's talking about the fact that China's male-to-female ratio is just under 1.2, which is insane for a country their size. Lots and lots of single unhappy men in a society where one is pressured to marry ASAP does not make for a happy society.

He was. He also suggested that China was:

> an increasingly belligerent and powerful nation

Powerful is of course true. Increasingly belligerent was the point I was responding to. If you look at China's recent history, they're a lot more West-friendly now than at any point since WWII.

It's not been a good look for China historically either. Particularly around the fall of the Ming dynasty, there was a large male-female imbalance, and low and behold, in some of the places where that ratio was worst, there were some of the most destructive of the peasant rebellions.

China's neighbors would likely disagree about China only wanting to trade. They're very aggressively laying claim to large swaths of sea around the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia that clearly do not belong to them. Annexing water territory that does not belong to them, is no different than China taking Tibet by force on the basis that they proclaim it belongs to them. As such it's clear that plenty of their extreme belligerence is still intact.

In what way would you say those terroritories do not belong to China, or any other country in the region? Or better yet, what makes even places like Canton, Shanghai even belong to China? (Keep in mind I'm not saying these lands do or do not actually belong to China, but I'm merely asking under what grouds do you make these claims)

> In what way would you say those terroritories do not belong to China, or any other country in the region?

All I know is that when one country wants to take what another country currently has, people die. It's the slaughter of impressionable young nationalists in war that I object to, not which country has suzerain over which scrap of land.

It doesn't really address the question at hand but I do agree with you, especially considering the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

> not which country has suzerain over which scrap of land

Personally, I don't care much for which country "owns" which scrap of land either, but usually it is the very same passionate nationalists that you referred to that disagree with us. Which is why, I've asked the original question, with what right does any country own a certain piece of land, or not own certain piece of land.

Hitler seemed to take Austria with very little if any bloodshed. Even in retrospect resisting might have been worse for the average Austrian. No one was coming to reinforce the Austrians if they resisted Hitler's annexation.

Yichi, the Devil called, he doesn't need any more advocates.

Their increased activity in the South China Sea is a counterpoint to that. I don't know about belligerence, exactly, but they're certainly being more assertive about some aggressive territorial claims.

The #1 belligerent nation on Earth now is uncontestedly the USA and this is not because Americans are belligerent and aggressive by nature but because it happens that the globalists and the Elite made that country their HQ conducting their business operations out of it.

The #1 belligerent nation on Earth's power is unassailable while buttressed by Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea and others, no illuminati necessary.

Illuminati & NWO is so 2000s dude!

Now it's all about the globalists and world government!

You don't have to believe in the illuminati to believe that large global entities (including both corporationsand nations) will work to protect their interests. Many large nations (including China) and most large corporations have a vested interest in seeing the US do well, so their investments and interests that are tied to the US do well.

A world where the US faces sudden economic problems is a world that sees economic problems on their own horizon.

The Chinese engage in cyber-espionage operations against their "peaceful" trading partners, rattle sabers over Taiwan and various islands, and so forth.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/10/opinion/la-oe-schmit...

They used to talk about a "Peaceful Rise" and had for a very long time. They stopped.

I know of two very large cyber espionage incidents that can be traced to individuals in China. It may or may not be government sanctioned, but the evidence that it is is somewhat compelling. For one, the hackers only work during business hours. Secondly, the tools used had a very specific signature of state sponsored espionage.

China isn't the only country engaging in cyber-espionage operations against their "peaceful" trading partners

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/18/new-zealand-ch...

Once again, I never said they were the "only" country. Merely that the trend was in favor increase, not decrease.

>the Chinese engage in cyber-espionage operations against their "peaceful" trading partners

Thankfully, the US and other "good" countries are above such things.

I never said that.

I'm just stating the trend is the opposite of the comment I replied to.

What do they say about glass houses and the NSA?

I was stating the statement about the trend was incorrect.

Factual statements isn't throwing stones. The "Peaceful Rise" propaganda/party line really did stop awhile ago.

Have you seen them build islands in the south China sea recently?

That's more complex than it appears. As others have pointed out, many of China's neighbors feel it has really stepped up its territorial attitude lately, eg Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines to name but 3. Part of the reason that the government is pushing the trans-pacific partnership (which does not include China) is to get the other SE Asian countries on a more competitive economic footing by opening up access to our markets, so as to put a brake on China's rush towards being a hegemonic power.

China is involved with territorial disputes with a large number of neighbors. China claims almost all of the South China Sea though it Nine-dotted line[0] map. There have been a large number of disputes that have resulted from that[1]. Examples are China's East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ECS AIDZ)[2]. China has threatened to take action against aircraft that don't identify themselves or obey China's orders[2]. There are many more example in the in-depth The Atlantic article "China's Dangerous Game"[3].

[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_Sou... [2] - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-11/23/c_1329116... [3] - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/chinas-d...

> China is involved with territorial disputes with a large number of neighbors

To clarify, China is militarizing long-standing territorial disputes.

Also note that there is no risk of military conflict between any of the neighbors or between the neighbors and the U.S., despite territorial or other disputes. Vietnam and the Philippines aren't threatening each other, nor are Japan and South Korea, Japan and Vietnam, or any of those countries and the U.S. But almost everyone seems to be in a militarized dispute with China.

Except they're not "coming of age"; they already have. Enforcement of the one-child policy started in 1980. The first children born under it are turning 35 these days.

I think your worry is a very reasonable one, but it has not become a reality. I wonder why not.

The one child policy has not always and everywhere been enforce with full power. You get a certain buffer effect from men getting a younger female companion: measured in person years, you'll have more single-men-years than single-women-years this way.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com