Support NeoGAF

[Che]

Well if they have nukes do they have means to strike almost anywhere in the world? if so then you make a valid point

To tell you the truth my opinion is that where things have gotten nowadays even if a big nuclear power nuked their own ground with all the nukes they had, the world would eventually still come to an end. Radiation is WAY worse than the bomb itself imo.

 

[Blackace]

On the contrary, it is widely agreed that US intelligence consistently overestimated Soviet military capabilities throughout the Cold War.



In a hypothetical exchange between just the USA and China, possibly, yes.

But would we wish we were dead... most likely...

I am in Japan and teh fallout here would be murder... also North Korea would launch just for the hell of it...

 

[Do The Mario]

The US has military bases around the world and is capable of deploying forces almost anywhere. That is simply another aspect to being a "superpower" that I felt wasn't addressed.

That’s a good point Boogie, I must admit I never gave it much thought I would go further to say many countries armed forces (Australia for example) are even designed to be integrated and support U.S forces. I don’t see China ever have this ability mainly due to linguistic and cultural differences.

 

[Blackace]

To tell you the truth my opinion is that where things have gotten nowadays even if a big nuclear power nuked their own ground with all the nukes they had, the world would still come to an end. Radiation is WAY worse than the bomb itself imo.

I am not saying that the fallout wouldn't kill mass amounts of people.....

 

[Vinzer Deling]

Yes, China has a huge ass army. And that's almost it.

China can match the US in military technology "with ease"? Are you aware of just how far ahead the US is in terms of military capability?

The USA has 12 aircraft carriers. China has none. In fact, here's what fas.org says about China's navy: "Currently, only seven Chinese ships, of the Luhai, Luhu, and Jiangwei classes, approach world standards for modern major surface combatants. " Oh yeah, that's real impressive.

Also, the US has 27 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, around 50 modern Arleigh-Burke-class guided missile destroyers (a few still not completed yet), etc., etc.

Should I go on to army and air force capabilities?

Exactly, China lacks force projection. Their standing army is just that; a STANDING army. They have no capability whatsoever to deploy troops all over the world.

 

[Do The Mario]

I am not saying that the fallout wouldn't kill mass amounts of people.....

Perth the city I live in Australia is the most isolated major capital city in the world, many speculate that it would make the perfect target in a nuclear war.

 

[Blackace]

Perth the city I live in Australia is the most isolated major capital city in the world, many speculate that it would make the perfect target in a nuclear war.

Used to live in Seattle Washington. Closer major city to the largest amount of drydocked Nuke subs.. now I live in Yokohama... I hope that this Korea thing fizzles out... beause it only takes 10 mins for a missle to reach Tokyo... and under Japanese's current counter meassures they have to call the PM first... (T_T)

 

[Do The Mario]

Used to live in Seattle Washington. Closer major city to the largest amount of drydocked Nuke subs.. now I live in Yokohama... I hope that this Korea thing fizzles out... beause it only takes 10 mins for a missle to reach Tokyo... and under Japanese's current counter meassures they have to call the PM first... (T_T)

That’s it I am digging a shelter in my back yard, buying a gun and stocking it full of baked beans.

Feel free to help, BYO shovel.

 

[karasu]

Aircraft carriers are an example of what is required for power projection. It is a pretty useless "superpower" that is only capable of using its military to prevent the invasion and attack of other nations against it.

I disagree. In fact i'd feel a lot better if the US were more like that.

 

[Phoenix]

China lacks more than force projection - they lack a military command structure for their airforce and navy (when they develop them). China is currently trying to get away from purchasing military hardware from other countries and producing better versions of its own aircraft and surface ships because right now they are a 'non issue'. China does have interesting ballistic missile technology (some of which stolen from the US), but no publicly available intelligence suggests they have achieved launch capability for the US. Over the next decade Chinas position will undoubtedly improve, but it is doubtful if it will reach US military capability of the 80s, let alone our project military capacity at that time.

Some useful miltary analyst quotes:

The PRC may not wish to settle these disputes violently, but it needs to maintain the option of doing so, and China’s leaders cannot feel confident that their non-nuclear forces are equal to the task. Although the various branches of the PLA are over two million strong, its deficiencies in troop skills, electronics, naval power, and modern aircraft make its numerical strength misleading. Not only is the PRC ill-equipped to fight the United States, it possesses only marginal advantages over such rivals as Japan, India, and the ROC.

The 1991 Gulf War provides a case study of large-scale combat under contemporary conditions. Chinese military thinkers have investigated it thoroughly. Like many other observers, the Chinese were impressed with the way the Western coalition used information technology to hamstring its Iraqi foes. China’s strategists were undoubtedly disturbed by the fact that Iraq’s forces had relied on Soviet-designed weapon systems much like the ones in the PRC’s own arsenal. Like their counterparts in other countries, Chinese military writers explored the possibility that developments in sensors, communications equipment, and precision-guided munitions (PGMs) had paved the way for a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) in which technologically adept armed forces would possess an insuperable advantage over their opponents.

...For any country with an interest in the RMA, the lack of C I systems is devastating. The lack of signal processing and transmission equipment capable of resisting enemy electronic warfare is almost equally so. China’s deficiencies in optical and electronic systems sharply limit its ability to develop precision-guided munitions as well. ...

Chinese analysts did not attribute the coalition’s victory over Iraq in 1991 to technology alone. Western forces also benefitted fromthe individual proficiency of their soldiers, the cohesion and teamwork displayed by their units, and the tactical abilities of their commanders. Here also, the Chinese appear to have cause for concern. From the 1980s onward, the PRC has been reducing the size of its armed forces in the hope that this will free the resources necessary to provide improved training, better living conditions, and more plentiful equipment for those who remain.

The PRC has imported four Kilo-class submarines fromRussia, along with two Sovremenny-class destroyers. Beijing expects to receive another two Sovremennys in 2005, along with another eight Kilos at an unspecified future point. 15 China also appears to be attempting to build the Kilo in its own shipyards. 16 Neither type of vessel is at the forefront of maritime technology, but the Kilo is quiet enough to challenge Western anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems, and the Sovremenny carries the potent Sunburn anti-ship missile.

The strength of a contemporary fleet, however, lies in the ability of its ships to protect one another with their defensive systems, and to combine their efforts in the attack. China’s deficiencies in C 4 I 2 systems sharply limit the PLAN’s ability to achieve such cooperation. The fact that over half the PRC’s major surface combatants lack surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) means that they could not protect themselves or each other against enemy aircraft and missiles even if they acquired the C 4 I 2 gear. 17 Moreover, much of naval warfare revolves around attempts to detect the enemy without being detected. China’s lack of modern sensors and electronic countermeasures hampers it in this area as well.

Beijing has more ships than many of its opponents, but its numerical advantages are modest. The PRC has 63 major surface combatants of uneven quality. 18 Japan has 54, most of which are more heavily armed and all of which are technologically up to date. The ROC has 32 vessels, which, again, carry modern equipment. India has 29, mainly equipped with Russian or Soviet systems, but one of India’s ships is an aircraft carrier.

Submarines are the traditional weapon of a second-rate naval power, and China has amassed a force of 69 such vessels. The PLAN’s underwater fleet is formidable, but it is hardly invincible. China’s domestically produced submarines lack the anechoic tiles that give the Kilo its stealth. 19 Also, over half of China’s submarine forces consist of obsolete Romeo-class boats, many of which may be unseaworthy. 2

The PRC does have a respectable ability to move its ground forces by sea. Astudy by the US Army War College suggests that the PLAcould land a full division of 10,000 to 14,000 troops in the first wave of an amphibious invasion, and analysts believe that the PRC armed forces could move 40,000 personnel onto the beachhead in a follow-up operation. 21 If the PRC used its assets creatively, it might be able to transport even larger numbers. One must, however, weigh the PRC’s transport capabilities against the difficulties the PLANwould face in protecting its troopships at sea, the fact that the ROChas prepared extensively to deal with an invasion, the fact that the PRC’s more powerful rivals have land armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and the inherent difficulties of amphibious operations.

The PRC’s combat aircraft are also superannuated, which exacerbates the problems of the PLAN. Again, the PRC is compensating for this weakness by importing up-to-date equipment fromRussia, notably the Su-27 and Su-30. The PRC also is developing the ability to produce at least the Su-27 in its own factories. 22 Nevertheless, to quote analysts Bernard D. Cole and Paul H. B. Godwin, “By the time China is capable of producing Su-27s without Russian assistance, it is likely that Harlan Jencks’ assessment, made in the late 1970s, that China’s J-6/MiG-19 was ‘the most highly perfected obsolescent combat aircraft in the world’ will yet again apply.” 23 PRC air forces have a poor reputation for maintenance, logistics, and training. 24 The PRC is beginning to develop aerial refueling capabilities, but most of its planes remain tied to their bases in mainland China. 25 Russia has offered to lease the PRC a trio of Airborne Early Warning aircraft and to train Chinese aircrews to operate them. 26 Nevertheless, it seems safe to say that PRC commanders suffer from serious handicaps in both their ability to monitor the skies and their ability to coordinate operations by their own aircraft.

The PRC currently has 128 Su-27s and Su-30s. The rest of its air armada, totaling more than 2,000 planes, consists of inferior aircraft flown by relatively inexperienced pilots and generally confined to operations within unrefueled flight range of their bases. Japan, by contrast, has 360 combat aircraft, including 130 F-15s. The ROChas 511, including 57 Mirage-2000s and 146 F-16s. India has 736, including 20 Sea Harriers, 28 Su-30s, 228 MiG-29s, and 40 Mirage-2000s. 28 The US Navy deploys 50 modern tactical aircraft on a single aircraft carrier, and typically maintains four such vessels in the Pacific Ocean at any given time. 29

In principle, nuclear weapons provide an excellent backstop for the PRC’s national strategy. Beijing, however, denies seeing nuclear weapons in those terms. According to the PRC’s national defense White Paper of 2002: China consistently upholds the policy of no first use of nuclear weapons and adopts an extremely restrained attitude toward the development of nuclear weapons. China has never participated in any nuclear arms race and never deployed nuclear weapons abroad. China’s limited nuclear counterattack ability is entirely for deterrence against possible nuclear attacks by other countries. 32 When Mao Zedong initially called on his people to develop nuclear weapons, he did, indeed, seemto be thinking primarily in terms of countering the nuclear forces of others. “We also need the atom bomb,” Mao stated in 1956. “If our nation does not want to be intimidated, we have to have this thing.” 33 Mao was not, however, squeamish about what nuclear weapons can do. When the Italian communist leader Palmiro Togliatti confided his fear that the Cold War might end in the nuclear destruction of Europe, Mao responded, “Who said Europe should survive?” 34

Digest that

 

[Boogie]

I was waiting for Phoenix to come in and provide us with some military analysis

I disagree. In fact i'd feel a lot better if the US were more like that.

I didn't mean to suggest it was good or bad, just that it is an attribute of a "superpower".

 

[Do The Mario]

I was waiting for Phoenix to come in and provide us with some military analysis



I didn't mean to suggest it was good or bad, just that it is an attribute of a "superpower".

Boogie you get my PM?

Like I said I am starting to strongly agree with the point that china will never have the kind of deployment potential of the states. With off shore bases and integration with other countries armed forces.

 

[NLB2]

IMO military has nothing to do with being a superpower. USA doesn't need all these weapons. In the impossible scenario that USA starts a war with China there won't be a winner -trust me on this. There will be a loser though, humanity. The only reason USA has such a vast amount of weapons is that your goverment loves making weapons dealers rich. Economy is the crucial factor of who's gonna be the next superpower. I mean let's take as an example Soviet Union. Their military was undoubtedly superior to USA's for many years. Look at them now..

How is it that the United States is taking control of the Middle East's oil? Oh yeah, through war! You are right that economy is the most important aspect of a super power, but only because a large economy allows for a large and advanced military.

BTW, this really shows how fat Americans really are. The three hundred million of us were consuming more food than the 1.3 billion Chinese :lol.

 

[whytemyke]

I did acknowledge India but it lacks the infrastructure at the moment IMO, it’s more a sleeping giant at this stage.

I was also open mined by acknowledging several problems China will face over the next 40 years.

Two things then. First off, Mario, my apologies for assuming that you're just another idiot. I do a lot of political debate on the net and often shoot first and ask questions later, so to speak. So, as I said... my apologies for the cheap shot.

While India may lack the infrastructure, you cannot deny the economic boom that it is going to experience over the next fifteen to twenty years. It could do a number of things, one of which being a huge economic collapse. But you cannot deny that if it is able to gain the infrastructure needed to maintain such an economy, then it will surely be a player in the world market.

And second, on China... do you really think it's going to take 40 years for them to leap the US? Most shit I've studied by economists are saying it'll be closer to half that time.

A final note that everyone would do well to consider militarily is that we can have as many bases around the world if we want, but most of them generally have about 20,000 soldiers (at least that's what most bases around the world are at.) But remember also that of our soldiers, the combatative soldiers versus the CS/CSS branches are about 5 soldiers for support to one soldier of combat.

I know our military is very strong, but we cannot win in a land war against China. We could probably take them in an air war, but not before our Air Force takes a helluva beating in the process (they've long been known to have stronger MiGs than the Soviets ever had.) There's a lot of if's when guessing at a war with China, and it's really nothing people want to think about. A big problem with China, politically speaking, is that most clandestine services still have incredibly difficult times gathering intel on them. Their government is a paranoid bunch to begin with, so it's very difficult. For all we know, they could have stronger jets than the F-22's that are coming out this year for the USN.

Anyways, my point here is that all these numbers are great, but when you have an army that can march nearly half a million troops against you in an engagement, you're not going to win without air support and amazing artillery. Artillery is pretty much a given, as America has been the best country, bar none, in the history of the world in using artillery (we were the ones teaching the Allies in WWI how to bring down the Zeppelins). But if the Chinese Air Force can match ours, or even perform half as well as ours, well... we're looking at a whole different ballgame here.

 

[Doth Togo]

China is like Shaq. Overrated, big and ugly. And yes, they make shitty movies too.

 

[whytemyke]

China is like Shaq. Overrated, big and ugly. And yes, they make shitty movies too.

Dude...

And have you ever seen Hero? One of the best movies in recent years...

 

[gofreak]

Slightly OT, but do we know where the nuclear powers' nuclear missiles are pointed at? You just wouldn't think certain places would be on anyone's target lists, and thus they may survive the explosions in a nuclear war (but obviously then have to deal with the short/medium/long term consequences, and very possibly die because of them).

 

[DonasaurusRex]

Hey hey bejing bicycle was good.

China overtook US in consumption because world economic powers want it that way, its a huge ass market with more potential for consumers. Not to mention cheap labor. I mean seriously the largest investments in china come from japan, taiwan, US, england germany etc, just like pre WWII. The difference this time being China is actually in charge this time around. I really wouldnt worry about china as a millitary threat, they have a huge army yes but how well equiped is this army? And how do you mobilize it? The fact remains that in the seas the US in unmatched, from carrier fleets to nuclear subs. ANd i would HOPE that the US military is wise enough to know by now that theres no point in trying to take over a country that big, much like russia had to show its invaders over and over, there is no occupying a country that is just too fuckin big.

 

[missAran]

It's a sad reflection on our society when consumption is the measure of a country's success. I don't think America should be proud it's the second-biggest consuming country and I don't China should be proud it's leading the pack.

 

[Do The Mario]

And second, on China... do you really think it's going to take 40 years for them to leap the US? Most shit I've studied by economists are saying it'll be closer to half that time.

+1 Respect for the apology, most people on GAF are way too stubborn to do such things.

I will try to answer most the points you rose tomorrow it is getting super latter, I will add I was looking at 10-15 years until China leapfrogged the US courteously of some help from George W. Which is largely what Boogie, Blackace, Che others and I were debating, most people acknowledge it will happen I just seem to think sooner then most.

China is like Shaq. Overrated, big and ugly. And yes, they make shitty movies too.

There must be so many other candidates of GAF that should have my tag.

 

[whytemyke]

Gofreak- I know that most places around the world generally have a few pointed at Colorado Springs so they can take out NORAD, which would essentially disable our Air Force for a short time.

Other hot spots are places you wouldn't think of. Midland, MI, is targeted because Dow Chemicals is based there, and they make most of the chemicals the Army could use, from chemical weapons to vaccines. Detroit is naturally in there, too, because of how easily everything can be geared towards making tanks, bradleys, hummers, etc. I imagine Washington is up there as well. Plus, Mt. Rushmore, so that they can take out Team America.

 

[missAran]

And have you ever seen Hero? One of the best movies in recent years...

I haven't seen Hero, I own it, I just haven't devoted time to it. But, as far as I can tell, it's a stylistic beauty but the story is lacking. Any truth to that?

 

[Azih]

I haven't seen Hero, I own it, I just haven't devoted time to it. But, as far as I can tell, it's a stylistic beauty but the story is lacking. Any truth to that?

To the extreme.

 

[whytemyke]

I haven't seen Hero, I own it, I just haven't devoted time to it. But, as far as I can tell, it's a stylistic beauty but the story is lacking. Any truth to that?

Yup. Just like fucking the prom queen.

 

[missAran]

Yup. Just like fucking the prom queen.

:lol Nice...

 

[videogamer]

It's a sad reflection on our society when consumption is the measure of a country's success. I don't think America should be proud it's the second-biggest consuming country and I don't China should be proud it's leading the pack.

Exactly. All this consumption means more food needs to be produced. This will put a greater strain on the water supply. The Chinese government has been doing a terrible job of providing environmental regulations and it doesn't look like it's getting much better. Forget about China's military, what about the environment? OK, building a military takes up resources too and thus affects the environment.

 

[missAran]

Exactly. All this consumption means more food needs to be produced. This will put a greater strain on the water supply. The Chinese government has been doing a terrible job of providing environmental regulations and it doesn't look like it's getting much better. Forget about China's military, what about the environment? OK, building a military takes up resources too and thus affects the environment.

You are absolutely right. Where's the effor to conserve resources? To preserve the environment. Capitalism, when resources run out, will destroy itself. This is ultimately what's wrong with the system.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

I know our military is very strong, but we cannot win in a land war against China. We could probably take them in an air war, but not before our Air Force takes a helluva beating in the process (they've long been known to have stronger MiGs than the Soviets ever had.) There's a lot of if's when guessing at a war with China, and it's really nothing people want to think about. A big problem with China, politically speaking, is that most clandestine services still have incredibly difficult times gathering intel on them. Their government is a paranoid bunch to begin with, so it's very difficult. For all we know, they could have stronger jets than the F-22's that are coming out this year for the USN.

Sure the US can take China in a conventional war. This isn't Middle-earth with Elves and Humans infantry charging at Orcs. Look at the current war, they're typically air strikes followed by ground infantry with air support.

 

[Doth Togo]

Dude...

And have you ever seen Hero? One of the best movies in recent years...

I have and I stand by my statement. While it and other Chinese movies can be visually appealing, my PERSONAL appreciation for movies doesn't stem from special effects and cinematography. That being said, I'm glad that they do have an industry as there are many who do appreciate those aspects.

 

[Phoenix]

We could probably take them in an air war, but not before our Air Force takes a helluva beating in the process (they've long been known to have stronger MiGs than the Soviets ever had.)

Uh no - just no, no, no. China buys its advanced aircraft FROM Russia and the few domestically built aircraft that they have had have been of disasterously poor quality.

Anyways, my point here is that all these numbers are great, but when you have an army that can march nearly half a million troops against you in an engagement, you're not going to win without air support and amazing artillery.

Yeah, back in 1776 this was true but warfare has advanced a long ways from advancing soft targets in the field. At no point will you ever encounter the entirety of the the chineese army on the battlefield, you will encounter it in a variety of units. Winning or losing against these units depends on their capability, training, ability to reflect damage and project some of their own on their attacker. If MILSAT shows a collection of soldiers massing in an area US SSBNs or guided missile cruisers could have cluster munitons on them with impunity. The Chineese airforce is currently a non-issue and with complete confidence I would predict a pretty decisive end to the air war in favor of US forces. Staticly placed SAM batteries and airfields are vulnerable to US subs and cruisers and their fall would allow strike packages to roam through much of china. That much isn't even in question. Having a large standing army in the field is not valuable without adequate protections that currently China cannot provide.

Artillery is pretty much a given, as America has been the best country, bar none, in the history of the world in using artillery (we were the ones teaching the Allies in WWI how to bring down the Zeppelins). But if the Chinese Air Force can match ours, or even perform half as well as ours, well... we're looking at a whole different ballgame here.

Not even close. Not only does China have a MUCH smaller airforce, it lacks the capability of the US airforce.

To even attempt discussing a 'ground war' in China would require some discussions of the military objectives. Are you trying to take the country? Are you trying to defeat the army in the field (no one really does this anymore)? Are you after specific objectives to get the enemy to ceede defeat (this is where the real wars are today)? Without going through this, much discussion about invading China or a general ground war in China is pointless as it is not well framed.

 

[Saturnman]

The air strikes over Serbia showed how much conventional bombs it takes to level a small country. And most NATO forces were running low on ammo after it was over.

I can not imagine how much bombs would be needed to level China.

 

[Phoenix]

Slightly OT, but do we know where the nuclear powers' nuclear missiles are pointed at? You just wouldn't think certain places would be on anyone's target lists, and thus they may survive the explosions in a nuclear war (but obviously then have to deal with the short/medium/long term consequences, and very possibly die because of them).

Depends on the type of exchange. If its a full out exchange - you can pretty much kiss all the major metros goodbye a few times over. Anything with a military base on or near it is likely on the hit list as well. If its a limited exchange - it depends entirely on the intent of limiting the exchange because if you say 'drop a missile on DC or some other major metro' you can pretty much forget any near term stop in hostilities.

 

[Piecake]

You are absolutely right. Where's the effor to conserve resources? To preserve the environment. Capitalism, when resources run out, will destroy itself. This is ultimately what's wrong with the system.

Actually i remember reading that China set a limit on fuel emissions. I forgot the exact number but i know its better for the enviroment than the United States limit. Granted, thats only one example, but its not like they are doing absolutely nothing

 

[Phoenix]

The air strikes over Serbia showed how much conventional bombs it takes to level a small country. And most NATO forces were running low on ammo after it was over.

I can not imagine how much bombs would be needed to level China.

An attack against Serbia and an attack against mainland China are so different in scope that you cannot frame them the same way. Serbia was for all practical purposes a peacekeeping excercise (after the shooting was stopped). In operations like this you may be dropping a bomb on 12 guys and a howitzer. "Attacking" a city in china would be entirely different and consist of the use of more strategic munitions against communications, power, factories, etc. The scope is different. In the first encounter you're trying to kill the enemy who may be hiding in the open or in a city - almost insurgent level operations.... long drawn out and a pain in the ass. In the second encounter you're trying to break the back of the enemy and its people - differnt target set, different munitions, etc. Unless you just want to be a complete ass and commit genocide, you wouldn't be carpet bombing cities in mainland china

 

[Phoenix]

Actually i remember reading that China set a limit on fuel emissions. I forgot the exact number but i know its better for the enviroment than the United States limit. Granted, thats only one example, but its not like they are doing absolutely nothing

lol - uh no. The limit that China set is still far worse than the current limit on emissions that the US imposes. China just moved to an 800PPM standard while the US is currently trying to improve from the 500PPM standard (same as Japan IIRC).

Get it right people. Just because people come out saying they are lowering their emissions does not mean that they are getting better than anyone else. China is simply improving from god-awful to awful.

 

[Saturnman]

An attack against Serbia and an attack against mainland China are so different in scope that you cannot frame them the same way. Serbia was for all practical purposes a peacekeeping excercise (after the shooting was stopped). In operations like this you may be dropping a bomb on 12 guys and a howitzer. "Attacking" a city in china would be entirely different and consist of the use of more strategic munitions against communications, power, factories, etc. The scope is different. In the first encounter you're trying to kill the enemy who may be hiding in the open or in a city - almost insurgent level operations.... long drawn out and a pain in the ass. In the second encounter you're trying to break the back of the enemy and its people - differnt target set, different munitions, etc. Unless you just want to be a complete ass and commit genocide, you wouldn't be carpet bombing cities in mainland china

Bridges, factories, power stations were all hit. They were precision bombing trying to limit civilian casualties, but it wasn't peace-keeping at all.

 

[Piecake]

lol - uh no. The limit that China set is still far worse than the current limit on emissions that the US imposes. China just moved to an 800PPM standard while the US is currently trying to improve from the 500PPM standard (same as Japan IIRC).

Get it right people. Just because people come out saying they are lowering their emissions does not mean that they are getting better than anyone else. China is simply improving from god-awful to awful.

"Environmentalists received a huge push from an unlikely source last week. Belittling concerns from auto manufacturers, China, whose environmental record is among the worst in the world, set fuel-economy standards on sport utility vehicles, vans and new cars.

Tougher fuel-economy standards have been long-time goals in the United States, and China’s decision could make the push for higher fuel economy in the United States easier. If China can set fuel-efficiency standards, surely the United States can do so too.

China’s decision to impose fuel-economy standards stems not from concerns over global warming or asthma rates among city populations, but from the political reality of oil. Oil prices around the world have increased as China has grown. China’s fuel-economy measure is just a beginning of a policy designed to lessen its dependence on foreign oil.

Certainly, China’s dictatorial government and jade-fisted decision-making is not to be admired. In a democracy such as ours, sweeping changes are more difficult to bring about. But at least in this instance, China’s plan will not only benefit the Chinese people but also the rest of the world.

China has done what the United States should have done 15 years ago. When powerful governments make demands on innovation with focused support, progress will be made. The United States has made such demands before during the space race and seatbelt development.

Now, auto manufacturers are faced with developing fuel-economy technology or leaving the lucrative Chinese market. Some manufacturers have already made their decisions and are trying to meet the new standards.

Clearly, the United States must turn the screw tighter and call for tougher fuel-economy standards. Combined with European efforts, auto manufacturers would have little choice other than to improve fuel efficiency. As Russia and the United States during World War II, China and the United States would make for unlikely but potent allies against a global threat. "

Thats the article where i got the info. Its fromthe MNdaily(university newspaper)

 

[Phoenix]

Bridges, factories, power stations were all hit. They were precision bombing trying to limit civilian casualties, but it wasn't peace-keeping at all.

The first strikes were against Milosvics forces and their capability, the subsequent operations were punitive.

 

[Phoenix]

"Environmentalists received a huge push from an unlikely source last week. Belittling concerns from auto manufacturers, China, whose environmental record is among the worst in the world, set fuel-economy standards on sport utility vehicles, vans and new cars.

Tougher fuel-economy standards have been long-time goals in the United States, and China’s decision could make the push for higher fuel economy in the United States easier. If China can set fuel-efficiency standards, surely the United States can do so too.

China’s decision to impose fuel-economy standards stems not from concerns over global warming or asthma rates among city populations, but from the political reality of oil. Oil prices around the world have increased as China has grown. China’s fuel-economy measure is just a beginning of a policy designed to lessen its dependence on foreign oil.

Certainly, China’s dictatorial government and jade-fisted decision-making is not to be admired. In a democracy such as ours, sweeping changes are more difficult to bring about. But at least in this instance, China’s plan will not only benefit the Chinese people but also the rest of the world.

China has done what the United States should have done 15 years ago. When powerful governments make demands on innovation with focused support, progress will be made. The United States has made such demands before during the space race and seatbelt development.

Now, auto manufacturers are faced with developing fuel-economy technology or leaving the lucrative Chinese market. Some manufacturers have already made their decisions and are trying to meet the new standards.

Clearly, the United States must turn the screw tighter and call for tougher fuel-economy standards. Combined with European efforts, auto manufacturers would have little choice other than to improve fuel efficiency. As Russia and the United States during World War II, China and the United States would make for unlikely but potent allies against a global threat. "

Thats the article where i got the info. Its fromthe MNdaily(university newspaper)

You'll notice that they did not even ONCE list what the rates are for China and what they are for the US. This article is also talking about the fuel economy rate, however clearly the author doesn't realize that culturally China is a VERY different place and there are MANY MANY MANY more motorcycles on the roads than there are cars. Cars there are also MUCH smaller than they are here making like comparrisons about overal 'MPG fuel economy' nearly pointless.

New fuel standards were issued for China this summer, including 800ppm sulfur content limit for gasoline. The 800 ppm limit is effective July 1, 2000 in Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai. The rest of the nation has until January 1, 2003 to make the upgrade from the current 1200ppm limit.

This news comes at the same time as publication of the latest World Fuel Charter in China which calls for 'sulfur free' or 5-10 ppm fuels for gasoline and diesel.

China still lacks standards for low sulfur diesel fuel. It is estimated that most diesel fuel in China averages 3000ppm. This is causing debate as the latest environmentally friendly diesel and gasoline engines require low sulfur content. Three-way catalysts and particulate filters are poisoned by sulfur and become inefficient. So, while the nation is looking to lower emissions and improve air quality for its 1.26 billion people, some of the necessary preconditions are not being met.

http://www.green-diesel.com/english/press/P-6.asp

The US standards are on EPA.org. I'll update with a quote with the exact figure.

Model year 1988-2003 US federal (EPA) and 1987-2003 California (ARB) emission standards for heavy-duty diesel truck and bus engines are summarized in the following tables. Applicable to the 1994 and following year standards, sulfur content in the certification fuel has been reduced to 500 ppm wt.

...


The diesel fuel regulation limits the sulfur content in on-highway diesel fuel to 15 ppm (wt.), down from the previous 500 ppm. Refiners will be required to start producing the 15 ppm S fuel beginning June 1, 2006. At the terminal level, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard as of July 15, 2006. For retail stations and wholesale purchasers, highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard by September 1, 2006.

Here is the information for busses/trucks.

Historical Certified Emissions Standards

1970-85 - Emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel engines were introduced in 1970 with a 13-mode, steady state test procedure, which continued through the 1983 model year. In 1974, HC+NOx and CO standards were introduced. Additionally, opacity smoke standards were tightened to levels (Accel=20%, Lug=15%, and Peak=50%), which are current today. The first NOx emissions standard (10.7 g/bhp-hr) and an optional transient test were added in 1984. The steady state test was eliminated in 1985.

1988-98 - A particulate matter (PM) standard (0.6 g/bhp-hr) was added in 1988 and PM and NOx standards continued to be tightened (6.0 g/bhp-hr in 1990 and 5.0 g/bhp-hr in 1991) to their current levels (4.0 g/bhp-hr in 1998). Technological changes began in 1990 with turbocharging and retarded fuel injection timing, among others. Initial use of electronic controls started in 1991 and was used on most engines by 1994 and nearly all engines by 1998. Oxidation catalysts and improvements to combustion chamber design were introduced in 1994. Further improvements in turbocharging continued through 1998.

Future Certified Emissions Standards

2002-04 – A NOx+HC standard of 2.5 g/bhp-hr, with an HC limit of 0.5 g/bhp-hr was introduced in 2002. In a Consent Decree with the federal government, six engine manufacturers agreed to produce engines meeting the 2004 standard by October 2002.

2007 – The standards will be lowered in 2007 to 0.01 g/bhp-hr for PM and 0.20 g/bhp-hr for NOx. In order to achieve the 2007 standards, an ultra-low sulfur fuel (sulfur content 15 ppm) is required and after-market technology is available. This equipment includes catalyzed traps, oxidation catalysts, NOx absorbers, and selective catalytic reduction systems. (See the insert on “Emission Control Technology” for more information.)

And for general use on-road vehicles.

 

[Piecake]

I just wanted to tell you where i got it from. Thanks to college, i really dont have the time or the desire to look it up for myself.

 

[AntoneM]

Gofreak- I know that most places around the world generally have a few pointed at Colorado Springs so they can take out NORAD, which would essentially disable our Air Force for a short time.

Other hot spots are places you wouldn't think of. Midland, MI, is targeted because Dow Chemicals is based there, and they make most of the chemicals the Army could use, from chemical weapons to vaccines. Detroit is naturally in there, too, because of how easily everything can be geared towards making tanks, bradleys, hummers, etc. I imagine Washington is up there as well. Plus, Mt. Rushmore, so that they can take out Team America.

And most of North Dakota, that state is full of Nukes, bombers and ICBM's

 

[Phoenix]

I just wanted to tell you where i got it from. Thanks to college, i really dont have the time or the desire to look it up for myself.

Oh I understand, I'm just showing you that you can't just take their word for it. They made a huge claim without proof and the editor should have bitch slapped that article so you the reader wouldn't have to do it for them

 

[Escape Goat]

China = greedy