Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 187 posts

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

freech wrote: post #48
jerf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the strategies is to keep Taiwan itself armed. Civilians like us can't know this, but it has been hypothesized that one of the levers being used on China with regard to North Korea's development of nuclear weapons is explaining to them that if North Korea goes nuclear, they can expect Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and who knows who else to go nuclear, either via local development of the weaponry or via assisted…

> We'd probably know if they'd ever tested a weapon. We wouldn't necessarily know if they'd actually built one. If I were them, I totally would have. What's the point of having nuclear weapons and not telling everyone? The entire point of nuclear weapons is to deter attacks.

> What's the point of having nuclear weapons and not telling everyone?

The point is so that:

(1) You can maintain the highest ground in proliferation discussions focussed on rivals, and

(2) Reveal your own weapons quickly if the geopolitical situation shifts (either as deterrence or, should the situation shift too quickly for that, direct use to blunt an existential threat.)

> The entire point of nuclear weapons is to deter attacks.

No, it's (as with any weapon) to provide the capacity to destroy the enemy if needed.

Like any weapon, this capacity can be publicized to deter attacks, but that is not the sole purpose of the weapon, and it can't be, because deterrence cannot work if it is perceived as the sole purpose of a weapon.

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#82

Post by scruple »

arialeks wrote: post #25
anthonyleecook wrote: post #4

Some other disturbing signs from China: increasing military budget https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/03/06/china-splash-us175-bil... , kidnapping relatives of the reporters in other countries that exposed the uigher concentration camps http://m.dw.com/en/chinese-authorities-detain-relatives-of-r... , China literally banned words and letter n in social media https://mashable.com/2018/02/28/china-bans-n-xi-jinping-term..…

Is it disturbing from a US POV, or generally speaking? Because if I recall correctly, the US military spending has gone up significantly as well, also it's projected to rise even further in the future. On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?

Which countries around the world are under the explicit and implicit protection of China's military?

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#83

Post by olympus »

pishpash wrote: post #80
olympus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't just disturb the US, but every country surrounding China that is dominated by the strongest power in the region. The weaker countries have no choice but to accept unfavorable trade deals, give up ocean territory away from what is the accepted as international convention, etc. China is big. China being ran by a dictator becomes a big bully.

US is a big bully with its Monroe Doctrine, dictator or not. This is China's version.

Just because the US does it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it any less concerning for the other countries in the region. Moral relativism isn't a good defense.

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#84

Post by adventured »

telchar wrote: post #69
adventured wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but Mongolia is much more likely to (with Russia as the opposing major power.) Russia gets expansion in Europe. China gets expansion in Asia. They agree to try to stay out of each others way. It certainly wouldn't be unusual, historically speaking, for very powerful authoritarian regimes to reach agreement on annexations of territory.

...or to break those agreements. I imagine the memory of Operation Barbarossa hasn't faded much in Russia. It's hard to imagine them trusting China to move their military into a buffer state without moving further.

It might be a question of whether it matters, given the vast territory they already share (which if I'm not mistaken is already nearly the length of the Russia-Mongolia border).

Granted, for a long time now Russia has harbored paranoia about their vast empty East, and that China might one day want to push into it. Russia is depopulating and China is overflowing with people. The comedy of the situation, is Russia having used the ethnic Russian setup premise to seize territory in Ukraine - China could use the same argument in various territories in Eastern Russia.

That said, I don't see Russia being willing to fight over Mongolia. China is already far too powerful and economically capable for them to do that. Russia could never come close to managing to hold off China in Mongolia, I think they know that. And I don't think Russia would be willing to go nuclear over Mongolia, which is what it would take to stop China if they wanted to annex the country.

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#85

Post by islanderfun »

mistermann wrote: post #72
adventured wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what matters is whether China is following the rules it, and everyone else, agreed to That's incorrect. China is failing, to an extraordinary degree, to comply with what it said that it would do in being allowed into the WTO. Namely, opening up their economy in terms of full and equal foreign access. At every step, they've refused to go forward with that. As it turns out, most likely, they were lying and buying tim…

It's amazing how clear this is, yet so few people can see it, it makes me wonder if there would be less confusion if we didn't have two different cultures involved. Of course, Western corporations and their executives who are profiting handsomely from it have good reason to "not notice" what's happening and continue to talk their book, but the wilful ignorance of genuinely well-meaning liberals is more complex. I alw…

There is willful ignorance mostly by those profiting. But it's not as simple as "well-meaning liberals". That seems like a re-writing of history when there are plenty of examples from the left protesting these deals.

And it's a bit hard to peg who on the right/left we're talking about as high level politicians tend to blur the line when talk about trade deals. "True scotsman" and all.

Sanders was all over unfair trade deals that hurt American workers. Perhaps he would've done it in a responsible manner? If there is such a way.

Perhaps I'm remembering wrong. It seemed as if the right was all for trade deals until Trump made it popular.

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#87

Post by drraid0 »

bgee wrote: post #33
anthonyleecook wrote: post #4

Some other disturbing signs from China: increasing military budget https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/03/06/china-splash-us175-bil... , kidnapping relatives of the reporters in other countries that exposed the uigher concentration camps http://m.dw.com/en/chinese-authorities-detain-relatives-of-r... , China literally banned words and letter n in social media https://mashable.com/2018/02/28/china-bans-n-xi-jinping-term..…

Can you elaborate more on why China's increasing military budget is a disturbing sign to you? China spends a mere 1.9% of its GDP in 2016 and that number is smaller than from Vietnam, Korea, India even Singapore [0]. To me China is only trying catching up its neighbors. BTW Japan's PM has just submitted his 2018 Military Budget and if approved would be the 6th "straight annual increase" [1]. [0]: https://data.worldba…

It is disturbing because China did not hesitate to kill 10000 of their own people in 1989 on a shoestring budget, and faced no consequence. Who knows what they would do to Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#88

Post by debt »

kolbe wrote: post #75
debt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's usually not except within in the context of Xi Xinping appointing himself ruler for life. The combination is cause for concern.

Is there something in particular about him that you find scary? I'm not sure why length of rule should play such a large part in this calculus.

"I'm not sure why length of rule should play such a large part."

Look to all of human history and you'll find your answer.

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#89

Post by gaius »

rtx wrote: post #60
bgee wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate more on why China's increasing military budget is a disturbing sign to you? China spends a mere 1.9% of its GDP in 2016 and that number is smaller than from Vietnam, Korea, India even Singapore [0]. To me China is only trying catching up its neighbors. BTW Japan's PM has just submitted his 2018 Military Budget and if approved would be the 6th "straight annual increase" [1]. [0]: https://data.worldba…

China has been getting aggressive with India, sometimes it feels like somebody needs a war to manage economics.

China has been getting aggressive with India

India is a nuclear power. Then again so is the UK and Argentina still invaded, so maybe that's not so much of a deterrent.

Re: Xi Jinping decides to abolish presidential term limits

#90

Post by squeegee5 »

debt wrote: post #18

I thought it was kind of odd when Trump joked that maybe the US should experiment with getting rid of term limits. The joke he made was clearly to enrage us leftists, but it also reeked of a man who doesn't fully grasp this new situation, which is actually scary. It was odd because China is an extremely advanced country and Xi Xinping made an extremely undemocratic, dictatorial move by abolishing term limits. So now…

Outside of the west, democracy is generally held in contempt. This can be dated at least as far back as Plato. Trump isn't misinformed, he believes that democracy is contemptible. And whether he is wrong is arguable.
Post reply on HN