Aardvark

I interpreted this comment: As being in response to my response about there being an overwhelming amount of stress or something. So, what sort of citation and point of reference can be made to an overwhelming sense of stress accumulated from several areas/individuals? Like I said, it would be ignorant to expect people to go scouring for some sort of statistical data and analysis to be able to cite to someone in order to justify my sense of "too much". No one asked for citation or point of reference, simply how you had come to the conclusion that 'too many' people were being disrespectful. Am I wrong here? I don't think so... I think you are. Being asked to provide some justification for your statements is perfectly reasonable.

He asked how you determined that 'too many' people were being disrespectful. Not 'It's ridiculous to ask that one's overall opinion and sense of something ought to be based off some recorded data and indexing by which they go listing in order to justify their self.' Simple question really, how have you determined that 'too many' people are being disrespectful? Nothing to do with recorded data or indexing in that question.

The USA has a current military doctrine that it should be able to fight and win two simulatenous wars in seperate theatres. That means being able to occupy Iraq and deal with a full scale insurgency and defeat any aggressive attack by China. China does have large armed forces, but they remain relatively primative and backward. For instance,China has over 400,000 men in its airforce, But it is ill equiped, with no capacity for mid air refueling, and the majority of the airforces 5,000 craft date from the 1960's and even earlier. The longest range for a Chinese naval cruise missile is only about 150 miles. The chinese airforce has only about 50 SU 27 fighter bombers, bought from Russia. This is nowhere near enough to attain air superiority over Taiwan, let alone Japan and the large US forces in the area. In terms of naval power China is also very weak. It has no operational aircraft carriers and is completely dependent on foriegn technology for its modernisation programme, technology for which its sailors are untrained. China admits that it is still some years of being in a position to mount landings on Taiwan, landings on Japan would be a much harder proposition. For China to attack Japan it would need to have air superiority, sufficent naval forces to transport and supply large numbers of troops several hundred miles over open sea onto hostile territory and modern mechanised armed forces to occupy Japan. By Chinas own admission it does not have air superiority, it only has about 50 modern fighter bombers, less than Taiwan, or Japan or the US 7th Fleet. It is also severely limited in any tactical missile capacity, leaving open only the option of nuclear attack, which would result in suicide. China does not have naval superiority, it has very few landing craft, let alone enough to transport a large army to Japan. It does not have any operational aircraft carriers to provide tactical air support and is suffering serve technical difficulties with its 'Kilo' class submarines, probably due to lack of training and experience with the new imported technologies. China does not have the military strength to threaten Taiwan on its own. Japan is stronger than Taiwan and further away. Japan is also a host for the US 7th fleet which is stronger than the Chinese navy. Japan is not helpless either, despite its constitutional restrictions it has large armed forces. It has over 150,000 very well equipped and trained soldiers in its army and over 200 modern combat aircraft, more modern aircraft than China can deploy as well as an excellent radar/anti aircraft missile defence system. Its navy has 16 submarines and 50 battleships as well as more than 150 combat aircraft. On purely military grounds China is decades away from acheiving air or naval superiority. Without those it is impossible for China to project any strength overseas against nations such as Japan. On economic grounds China is much more dependent on nations such as the US than the US is on China. China is forced to import almost all high technology, still not having any serious indigenous capacity to develop high technology Any war which disputed trade and investment would lead to serious problems and potential internal collaspe. China would be unlikely to recieve support from its neighbours. South Korea, Taiwan, the Philipines, India, Mongolia, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstan all have disputes with China and have serious strategic concerns about the growing power and belligerence of the current Chinese regime. Only Pakistan might be friendly inclined, but as Pakistan is relatively weak and now dependant on the US it is improbable that any real support would be forthcoming. China is modernising fast, but the majority of China is still third world. It is technologically behind the West and heavily dependant on the West for economic development and technology. China does not have the means to project any military strength overseas against Japan. Any war would be unfightable. China could not attack Japan and Japan could never invade China.

India would not side with China. The two nations are not friends. It would probably stay neutral, but definitely not support China. The USA would definitely side with Japan. The USA has a defence treaty with Japan and a lot of troops and military bases in Japan. The US navy and airforce in the Pacific completely outclass anything China has. China would be completely unable to invade Japan or challenge the USA. If forced to make a choice it is obvious that India would side with the Japan/USA alliance. I'm not looking at old history here. Japan and the USA are very close allies. China is militarily occupying Indian territory NOW. China is also largely responsible for Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. China and India are regional rivals, not friends.

He may or may not be incompetent, but he is apparently less corrupt than his predecessor. Having broken the stranglehold of the PRI over Mexican public life there should automatically be less cronyism and corruption.

I was specifically responding to the suggestion that underground nuclear explosives used for civil engininering could blow up the world. The objections centre around environmental hazards not global destruction.

True, words are all very well, but when troops are sent in it gives a much more convincing message. The US government has earnt a lot of credibility, when it talks of overthrowing despotism and advancing democracy everyone knows it is not just rhetoric, the US really means it, unlike when the US was led by the first Bush, who stood back and allowed Sadaam to crush his opponents.

China lacks naval power and air power. It has no way of projecting its strength overseas, Having a large army is useless if you can't deliver it to where it is needed. Militarily China is not able to defeat Japan. Having hundreds of millions of peasants doesn't result in military strength. China simply doesn't have the capacity to attack Japan. China remains economically backward and undeveloped despite its recent large advances. Japan retains a huge technological lead. China is heavily dependent on other countries, in particular Japan for its modernisation. The USA has a defence treaty with Japan. The USA has large numbers of troops and serious military bases in Japan. If China was mad enough to attack Japan then the USA would definitely intervene on Japans side. Kim Jong Il is a wild card, but he must know that to involve his country in any war would be suicidal. His regime is only kept in place by brutal internal repression and external aid. Any war would lead to collaspe. India is no friend of Chinas. In any conflict India would not side with China. China has attacked India and militarily occupies Indian territory today. The two nations are rivals. China has consistently lent support to Pakistan in an effort to weaken China as well as directly attacking India. There is no way India would side with China.

Is your angle that the US troops act as a positive force in the region provoking the spread of democracy and reigning in despotism?

Money supply is measured by various national and internatuional institutions, if a government was to start secretly printing new money it would show up pretty quickly. As all governments know they would be found out quickly it is highly unlikely that they would go to the bother of actually trying, it's simply not a good strategy.

Level 8, cloaks of lead and no light. Why am i getting flashbacks of school?

Both countries have no reason whatsoever to go to war. Minor maritime boundary disputes and old quarrels about war guilt aren't enough to provoke a war between two nations like China and Japan. Both countries know that they have nothing at all to gain from such a war.

Firstly, you ask how people will find out. The answer is, it doesn't matter it people find out or not. Secondly, you ask how it will have any adverse affect if no one finds out. The answer is supply and demand. If their are more dollars in circulation then they will loss their purchasing power. More money in circulation leads to higher prices, ie the value of that money declines. That is inflation. Similiarly, more dollars in circulation on the international markets will lead to the purchasing power of those dollars declining, ie you need more of those dollars to buy Yen or Euros or Pounds. That is devalution. If you have been watching the markets over the last couple of years you can see that increasing numbers of dollars on the markets (due to the USAs trade deficet) has significantly reduced the value of the dollar. I've tried to answer your questions in very simple terms, if you don't understand or have any queries please ask and i'll try and explain.

That is a misunderstanding of the process of evolution. Any intermediate, transition step must, in itself, be beneficial. Evolution has no foresight, it doesn't plan ahead. The transitional period of devoloping a birds wing would have not included any stage of non-beneificiality. Instead it would have been the slow accumulation of benefits. For instance a slightly flatter arm allowing the creature to glide and jump longer distances. A slightly less dense bone structure enhancing that benefit. Every step would have conferred some immediate advantage on the organism. For a clear explanation i recommend 'Climbing MT improbable' by Richard Darwkins.

I heard that the corruption problem in Mexico was still bad but slowly improving under President Fox. The defeat of the PRI in the last presidential elections should have broken some of the basis of government corruption with the old guard denied access to the patronage they previously controlled. Is this not the case?

What does it mean in your language? It sounds like a good word.

No one has suggested that the world would be blown up. Rather, that the radioactivity released from these explosions would be a problem. The USSR had quite a developed programme for peaceful industrial use of nuclear explosives. Creating underground reserviors, altering watercourses and aiding mineral extraction. Unfortunately even the Soviets found the environmental problems to be unacceptable.

Maybe Fred Hoyles wasn't completely cracked after all.

How Baconian of you. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to what this artifact you supposedly found is? Do you have any pictures? Has anyone else examined it? Does it actually exist?

Science is the process of understanding the objective reality of the world around us. It is technology which is the instrument of serving humans. I completely disagree with you. Cooperation and consensus do not ensure reliable electric current. Cooperation and consensus do not propel aircraft thousands of feet in the air over many miles. Cooperation and consensus do not produce vaccines and anti biotics. These are created by the rigourous application of objective knowledge. 'What ifs?' are only of us if they are then subjected to careful examination to see how correct the 'what if' is. The forming of a hypothesis is then followed by the rigourous testing to see if it stands up to reality. Wishful thinking doesn't have a place in science.

Is this for definite? If it is then does that mean that their was life on Mars some time in the past? If that is the case it is absolutely fascinating, the implications are very broad.