Chinese sucesfully test anti-satellite.

[lars573]

In a totally unrealted story. Toilets in the strategic planning wing of the pentagon are mysteriously clogged by bricks. :laugh4:

Here's the story.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- China last week successfully used a missile to destroy an orbiting satellite, U.S. government officials told CNN on Thursday, in a test that could undermine relations with the West and pose a threat to satellites important to the U.S. military.

According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth. The missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the satellite by ramming it.

The test took place on January 11. (Watch why the U.S. has protested the missile strike )

Aviation Week and Space Technology first reported the test: "Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat (anti-satellite) system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center."

A U.S. official, who would not agree to be identified, said the event was the first successful test of the missile after three failures.

The official said that U.S. "space tracking sensors" confirmed that the satellite is no longer in orbit and that the collision produced "hundreds of pieces of debris," that also are being tracked.

The United States logged a formal diplomatic protest.

"We are aware of it and we are concerned, and we made it known," said White House spokesman Tony Snow.

Several U.S. allies, including Canada and Australia, have also registered protests, and the Japanese government said it was worrisome.

"Naturally, we are concerned about it from the viewpoint of security as well as peaceful use of space," said Yashuhisa Shiozaki, chief cabinet secretary. He said Japan has asked the Chinese government for an explanation.

Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to "freedom of action in space" and says it will "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so."

The policy includes the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

Low Earth-orbit satellites have become indispensable for U.S. military communications, GPS navigation for smart bombs and troops, and for real-time surveillance. The Chinese test highlights the satellites' vulnerability.

"If we, for instance, got into a conflict over Taiwan, one of the first things they'd probably do would be to shoot down all of our lower Earth-orbit spy satellites, putting out our eyes," said John Pike of globalsecurity.org, a Web site that compiles information on worldwide security issues.

"The thing that is surprising and disturbing is that [the Chinese] have chosen this moment to demonstrate a military capability that can only be aimed at the United States," he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

Now this makes dealing with China much more interesting. They have the weapons to blind the US militaries eyes. And makes those nifty orbiting weapon platforms a much less secure investment don't you think. Still funny how the US cries fowl when it's military power is obviously threatened.

[DemonArchangel]

And? What's America going to do about it? An ASAT (anti-satellite missile) is very cheap, and can be delivered using an old MiG as a firing platform. No real stopping of that, just whining.

[Ice]

And? What's America going to do about it? An ASAT (anti-satellite missile) is very cheap, and can be delivered using an old MiG as a firing platform. No real stopping of that, just whining.

Pretty much. It doubt it matters anyway, if we get into a situation where the Chinese are knocking out our satalities orbiting earth, I believe we will have bigger problems to worry about.

[Watchman]

And you can always return the favour.

[BigTex]

And you can always return the favour.

Indeed, sending a missile above the atmosphere to nail a satelite is nothing new. Not suprising the Chinese have decided to try and make a big deal out of this though. Problem being they would have a hard time doing that when the country this is aimed to harm has full first strike capabilties over them..:oops:

Dealing with China wont change because of this. Most militarys throughout the world have this capability. But I doubt the world would enjoy someone blowing up a satelite with a nuclear material inside above their country.

[Major Robert Dump]

There you have it, we're going to lose the space race and be subjects of China's space policy. But at least we almost banned gay marriage!!!!!!!
Hey I could use this to bash the last Republican Congress and our President for sitting around with their thumbs up their butts while an underfunded NASA fries its own astronauts and reschedules each flight 40 times because they are cruising in ships as old as i am, but I won't, cuz they sent me that check for 50 dollars that one year.

China has a distinct advantage on getting people into space because they can fit 348 people into a ship the size of a coast guard cutter. Hey! Good thing Mexico doens't have a space program!!!!

[Major Robert Dump]

The real truth about why we must take space first

http://www.heavensgate.com/

[Ronin]

Hey I could use this to bash the last Republican Congress and our President for sitting around with their thumbs up their butts ...

HEY! at least it was their own thumbs up their butts and not someone else´s....:smash:

now THAT would be totally unnaceptable!! :laugh4:


had to make that joke.....I´ll shut up now....:book:

[rory_20_uk]

Space isn't the perview of the USA. Not surprising that they threw their toys out of the pram when others show that US domination isn't something they're doing nothing about.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Hmm, it's not only the US militaries' spying capabilities that are in danger, it's also GPS guided bombs, GPS navigation, satellite communication and of course worldwide satellite TV as well as geographical analysing and weather satellites. Not to mention all the future satellite-based technology the US are developing. Now the only question is why are the US upset? There was no harm done to them or does cluttering their sensor screens with debris count as such?

[Del Arroyo]

For chrissakes, they lodged a formal protest. Most countries of the world lodge formal protests all the time over practically nothing at all. All the US said was that they're not happy. Well, they aren't happy, are they? It's not as if China herself is above whining when she doesn't get her way.

[Husar]

For chrissakes, they lodged a formal protest. Most countries of the world lodge formal protests all the time over practically nothing at all.
Ah, well, never handed one in myself so I didn't know how serious that is meant to be.~;)

[Ice]

I'm also positive that right now the United States is working on a way to counter that threat their satalites.

[discovery1]

There was no harm done to them or does cluttering their sensor screens with debris count as such?


Well, now that you mention it, there is an even increasing problem with debris in space. A collision at orbital speeds even with say, a smallish bolt, could do some damage.

[Mooks]

I imagine if China dare touch our TV broadcasting satellites the american population will erupt in rage and kill every person in china until there is noone left. Yes, we love our tv that much.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Destroying space satellites with missles is so 1980ish. As in the US and Soviets been there done that. Both agreed to stop because of all the unwanted space junk created that could damage or destroy everyones space toys.But hey, if the perceived notion that the US is in grave danger gives one a woody, who would want to deny one the fantasy.

[TevashSzat]

holybandit, i fear that you are wrong for there is over four chinese person in china for every american and even more if you count all of those mexicans and other people that immigrated and aren't true americans. What the americans need to do is make an alliance with india and its 1 billion pop, then the odds will be even

[Marshal Murat]

The American populaton will either hate being in a war without satellite tele or love it.
Broadcasters-Hate
Radio-What, a new audience!
Athletic Directors-Yippee, our children will be able to work off that belly fat eating potato chips on the couch watching Spongebob.
Men-WHAT! NO FOOTBALL! I'm Calling my Congressman!

[Kanamori]

Woo, I wish I randomly had a company that could start making the anti-anti-satellite.

I know that I would be upset if my satellites' safety could be threatened easily.

Wait... I live in Madison --> I live in Wisconsin --> I live in the U.S. --> I live in the world; satellites are important for me. Damn.:embarassed:

"Hey china, we actually think communism isn't too bad... funny joke we've been playing, huh?"

[Marshal Murat]

*See amusing images threat*

Anti-Anti-Satellite Missile?
Or the Anti-Missile?
What about a OMGLazer?

[Husar]

holybandit, i fear that you are wrong for there is over four chinese person in china for every american and even more if you count all of those mexicans and other people that immigrated and aren't true americans. What the americans need to do is make an alliance with india and its 1 billion pop, then the odds will be even
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I thought that was a typically european mistake, but oh well....
Mexicans are not true Americans?
Ever heard about the difference between countries and continents and their names etc?
At least you got it right in your profile. ~;)

[Mooks]

holybandit, i fear that you are wrong for there is over four chinese person in china for every american and even more if you count all of those mexicans and other people that immigrated and aren't true americans. What the americans need to do is make an alliance with india and its 1 billion pop, then the odds will be even

You obviosly do not understand the pure hatred that the couch patatos would have if the chinese knocked out television. Nah, im just kidding. I once heard a good comedian say this though "The chinese could canoe over here and put up a good fight" pretty funny guy..

[Strike For The South]

Hasnt the USA had this tech for like 20 years? teh old.

[Bava]

Hasnt the USA had this tech for like 20 years?

More like 25 years, but as far as i know they stopped the programm in 1985.

The funny thing is that the White House is complaining but for themselves claim to have the right of "freedom of action in space".

They could just say "Yes, we are worried about China´s capability to destroy our
spy satellites, which we ...err...dont have."

[BigTex]

They could just say "Yes, we are worried about China´s capability to destroy our
spy satellites, which we ...err...dont have."

Those would include the GPS satelites. People the world over use those, alot of shiping relies on them. Don't think China would ever be able to shoot one of those down without diging itself a big hole.

But again there's a reason the USSR/USA stoped building anti satelite missiles, it's MAD.

[Pannonian]

Those would include the GPS satelites. People the world over use those, alot of shiping relies on them. Don't think China would ever be able to shoot one of those down without diging itself a big hole.

But again there's a reason the USSR/USA stoped building anti satelite missiles, it's MAD.
It might be a message to the US to stop even thinking of militarising space, as the orbital platforms will be shot down more cheaply than they originally cost. Sure, Chinese satellites will be damaged or rendered useless by the debris, but they have less to lose.

A comparable situation might be the Battle of Guandu, where Cao Cao faced a much larger and better supplied enemy force. Cao Cao burnt his enemy's camp, which left them both short on supplies, but the enemy had more mouths to feed. If China can threaten to make the orbit around the Earth unusable, whoever has more satellites up there has more to lose.

The sensible solution, as ever, is to talk.

[Bava]

Well, China is said to have succesfully blinded a US recon satellite via laser. This and the further developement of their Jian - 10 (a "budget" fighter, looks like a mix of F-16 and Eurofighter) should certainly worry the gov of Taiwan.

[BigTex]

It might be a message to the US to stop even thinking of militarising space, as the orbital platforms will be shot down more cheaply than they originally cost. Sure, Chinese satellites will be damaged or rendered useless by the debris, but they have less to lose.

This wont slow down plans to have satelite mounted weapons platforms in space. The anti-satelite missiles have been in existance for over 25 years. They have been planned for. If anything this will help urge us to develop our missile shield technologies.

PannonianA comparable situation might be the Battle of Guandu, where Cao Cao faced a much larger and better supplied enemy force. Cao Cao burnt his enemy's camp, which left them both short on supplies, but the enemy had more mouths to feed. If China can threaten to make the orbit around the Earth unusable, whoever has more satellites up there has more to lose.

War with China would involve stagnant defensive battles through mountainous terian in India. Through the jungles of Korea. That scenario will probably never occur. War with China will be won over the sky's and in the fields of their farms. Once Air superiority is gained nothing's getting off the ground.

[Pannonian]

This wont slow down plans to have satelite mounted weapons platforms in space. The anti-satelite missiles have been in existance for over 25 years. They have been planned for. If anything this will help urge us to develop our missile shield technologies.

Are they effective?



War with China would involve stagnant defensive battles through mountainous terian in India. Through the jungles of Korea. That scenario will probably never occur. War with China will be won over the sky's and in the fields of their farms. Once Air superiority is gained nothing's getting off the ground.
Alliance with Russia? The Russians have already stated their defence policy, which is that, however many of their nukes have rusted to unuseability, enough of them remain to make a mess of America. The Chinese have nukes of their own, enough to effectively end the civilisations of American allies in the region. If they make a good enough alliance with Russia, it will mean they're covered by MAD as well. And if anything in the last few years have taught us, it's that they're rather good at diplomacy, especially with non-liberal democracies.

Why not back off a bit, wind down the arms race, and talk? It'll be safer, and cheaper. It's not as if the neocon fixation on arms has achieved anything positive.

[Marshal Murat]

China faces some interesting options.
They're western flank is secured and halted by the Gobi desert and the logistical problems associated with that. To the north is Russian Siberia, which is just as bad as the Gobi desert. There aren't any strategic options, aside from a thrust across the Bering Straits, even if they could. To the south is the Himalayan Mountains and the Indochina jungles. To the west is the Pacific Ocean. As such, the Chinese (if they do declare war) are going to be looking for more resources to keep their population supplied and avoid internal civil war.
If all options save for military expansion were exhausted, then the Chinese are going for the food sources that are required for life. Thats going to be the rice paddies of Indochina, and the land of India.
The Vietnamese are going to put up a stiff fight, and with American/Indian backing across the board, the Vietnamese will be able to pull some serious damage on the advancing Chinese columns. The Himalayan mountains will slow any and every operation (Yeti's, duh!), which may have been the reasoning behind the train line from Beijing to wherever in Tibet.
If its economic, then they will strike the nearest capitalist neighbor, Japan. South Korea will be hit by the NK troops with Chinese support. Taiwan will have to be a shield, absorbing enough damage so that American support can arrive. The U.S. will have to be able to work without satellit support, something that I hope the U.S. Navy is very aware of.
Australia will no doubt lend some aid, along with most of Western Europe.

The key problem is Chinese aid to Latin America, Africa, and other under-developed areas. Chinese investments have boosted local economies, and made it into something like Reaganonomics, where countries are tied to China by their financial interests.

I think that the U.S. could use space shuttles to pummel China with HE or damaging warheads. The Cao Cao analogy is very nice, because if worse came to worse, the U.S. could nuke the rice paddies and food sources in China, destroying the agriculture of the nation and forcing the peasantry either to revolt against the war or starve.

[Marshal Murat]

But when does military spending become an 'arms-race'. If I see Canada spending billions of dollars purchasing and refitting their equipment, then I'd be kinda worried.


With satellites down across the globe, GPS and alot of tracking gear would be null and void. It would make our military 1950's-ish navigational and plotting level.
I guess grey-hound satellites would be cool. Locally launched satellites that relay information directly back to HQ. Especially for squad or company levels. They send up a spy bot or UAV, and scope out the situation.

I think that space warfare has given America a definite edge. To make Space Shuttles into orbital, adjustable weapondry platforms would be some modifications, and that would give the US a definite edge, allowing orbital, high power strikes. The Chinese only have something like the Russian rockets. 1 use sorta things.

[Pannonian]

China faces some interesting options.
They're western flank is secured and halted by the Gobi desert and the logistical problems associated with that. To the north is Russian Siberia, which is just as bad as the Gobi desert. There aren't any strategic options, aside from a thrust across the Bering Straits, even if they could. To the south is the Himalayan Mountains and the Indochina jungles. To the west is the Pacific Ocean. As such, the Chinese (if they do declare war) are going to be looking for more resources to keep their population supplied and avoid internal civil war.
If all options save for military expansion were exhausted, then the Chinese are going for the food sources that are required for life. Thats going to be the rice paddies of Indochina, and the land of India.
The Vietnamese are going to put up a stiff fight, and with American/Indian backing across the board, the Vietnamese will be able to pull some serious damage on the advancing Chinese columns. The Himalayan mountains will slow any and every operation (Yeti's, duh!), which may have been the reasoning behind the train line from Beijing to wherever in Tibet.
If its economic, then they will strike the nearest capitalist neighbor, Japan. South Korea will be hit by the NK troops with Chinese support. Taiwan will have to be a shield, absorbing enough damage so that American support can arrive. The U.S. will have to be able to work without satellit support, something that I hope the U.S. Navy is very aware of.
Australia will no doubt lend some aid, along with most of Western Europe.

You're thinking old school colonialism, but not old school enough. If China negotiates an alliance with Russia, which they certainly will if they ever feel threatened by the US, geographical flanks won't matter. As per the old Soviet doctrine, there will not be a period of conventional skirmishing, but the war will go nuclear from the start, and the targets will not just be the frontline, but will strike at the enemy's heartland also.

The key to defeatig China would be to strangle their sources of energy and other essentials. Unlike the Japanese co-prosperity sphere, the Chinese have not been securing these resources by occupying the countries that obtain them, but have insinuated into these countries via culture and economy. In any Sino-American war, the populations of these countries will back China. And unlike the neocon emphasis on force of arms, the Chinese way is considerably cheaper, arouses less opposition from the subject peoples, is mutually beneficial, and increases influence and control over time without needing to put in any additional effort. The kind of thing the US used to be so good at, but thanks to the neocons no-one will believe America again for the forseeable future.


The key problem is Chinese aid to Latin America, Africa, and other under-developed areas. Chinese investments have boosted local economies, and made it into something like Reaganonomics, where countries are tied to China by their financial interests.

That's more like it. Some of us have recognised this for some years now, and shaken our heads disbelievingly at Bush's efforts to sabotage your own reservoirs of influence and goodwill. A lot of people wanted to believe in America, but the sheer front of declared US unilateralism (even before 9/11), capped by the debacle of Iraq, made them despair. I wonder how many of these Sinophiles grew up dreaming of making their country into another US?


I think that the U.S. could use space shuttles to pummel China with HE or damaging warheads. The Cao Cao analogy is very nice, because if worse came to worse, the U.S. could nuke the rice paddies and food sources in China, destroying the agriculture of the nation and forcing the peasantry either to revolt against the war or starve.
And what makes you think the US can survive the retaliatory nukes? MAD. Also, any forseeable space-oriented weapons platform is going to be exorbitantly uneconomic. The cost of putting a weapon on a shuttle far, far (*10^umpteen) exceeds the comparative benefits of putting it up in space.

China is enough of a power not to fear the US militarily, and they are far shrewder than the current bunch in the White House. Bush and the neocons have not just blundered in Iraq. A disastrous war can easily be made up for. Their doctrine of unilateralism has hugely damaged people's trust in the US, and that cannot easily be repaired. China isn't going to attack the US, and if the US attacks China, you can guarantee the rest of the world will turn against you, if only by cutting off all relations.

[ajaxfetish]

Wow, this thread has gotten pretty wild. Can anyone explain to me how it is in any way in U.S. interests to get involved in a war with China, and how it is in any way in Chinese interests to get involved in a war with the U.S. China is becoming a player on the world stage to rival the U.S., and they're flexing their muscles and showing they deserve our respect, which seems perfectly healthy to me. I think we're getting a little too used to being the only world superpower, and developed a little hubris to go with that. America and China are intimately related economically, and that I think is what's most important to both nations. Neither of us are going to risk the disaster that would ensue from a direct military tangle with the other. There'll be plenty of posturing, plenty of competition, plenty of seeking for respect or even fear, but hopefully no lunacy.

Ajax

[discovery1]

To make Space Shuttles into orbital, adjustable weapondry platforms would be some modifications, and that would give the US a definite edge, allowing orbital, high power strikes. The Chinese only have something like the Russian rockets. 1 use sorta things.

The Space Shuttle was built in part to be an orbital bomber, although the USAF figured out how unworkable it was and dumped it after the launch facilites were built at Vandenburg.

And you don't need the shuttle as a weapons platform. It would actually suck as one, since it only can stay up for about two weeks. Well, I guess you could run supply missions. An automated station would be better.

An excellent example would be Polyus:

http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Polyus/polyus-energia.html

https://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9066/polyus29vq.jpg


But anyway, don't you all worry about space things. I'll handle it :yes:

[lars573]

But when does military spending become an 'arms-race'. If I see Canada spending billions of dollars purchasing and refitting their equipment, then I'd be kinda worried.
Be worried then, cause we are. It was one of Harpers election promises. Which he delivered on in his first budget.

[Marshal Murat]

Unless China starts a genocide of their population to keep it down, they will have the largest population by like 2010.
They have alot of people thanking them for the investments on infranstructure, and that sort of money doesn't come without string.

China, while it doesn't have the ability to destroy America yet, they are rapidly progressing to such a position. The ability to destroy satellites is essential to defeating any modern power. Now, unless they want to destroy Russia, they have the aformentioned geopolitical options to ensure resources to feed their population, or they are facing food riots, and political reform isn't very far behind. Reform often means a reshuffling of politico's, or something along the lines of the French Revolution (anyone? anyone?)

It doesn't mean China is going to be doing it now, in 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, or 2050. They could clone 4000 cows and 5000 chickens. Land can support only so many people per square mile.

What I want to know is about the global warming and climate shifts. If that occurs, then some nations will be forced into a migration that the recieving countries aren't able to stand, nor want. If the Sahara desert suddenly sprang to life with lush plains of grass and trees, rippling brooks, and hundreds of deer, it would be cool. It would be bad because Algeria would have to stave off the poor and criminal, who seek to settle in the new rich lands.
Climate change would force Nicaragua to declare war on neighbors, for if Nicaragua becomes a barren desert, then the people there are screwed. So they seek to preserve their nation, and strike out.
Now, coming from a non-emotional perspective (see peace thread) I would say that now would be the time for world peace (with climate change). The nations would bind together and share the wealth.
Okay.

[Pannonian]

Unless China starts a genocide of their population to keep it down, they will have the largest population by like 2010.
They have alot of people thanking them for the investments on infranstructure, and that sort of money doesn't come without string.

China, while it doesn't have the ability to destroy America yet, they are rapidly progressing to such a position. The ability to destroy satellites is essential to defeating any modern power. Now, unless they want to destroy Russia, they have the aformentioned geopolitical options to ensure resources to feed their population, or they are facing food riots, and political reform isn't very far behind. Reform often means a reshuffling of politico's, or something along the lines of the French Revolution (anyone? anyone?)

It doesn't mean China is going to be doing it now, in 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, or 2050. They could clone 4000 cows and 5000 chickens. Land can support only so many people per square mile.

The one family one child policy has been showing its effects, as the Confucian society has led to an imbalance of sexes. Too many young men and not enough young women. That means population slowdown. Combined with instability caused by the migration of youngsters to the cities and the depopulation of the countryside which traditionally favours large families, this means overpopulation isn't going to be a problem for the Chinese. There are problems with their population, but sheer size isn't going to be one of them.


What I want to know is about the global warming and climate shifts. If that occurs, then some nations will be forced into a migration that the recieving countries aren't able to stand, nor want. If the Sahara desert suddenly sprang to life with lush plains of grass and trees, rippling brooks, and hundreds of deer, it would be cool. It would be bad because Algeria would have to stave off the poor and criminal, who seek to settle in the new rich lands.
Climate change would force Nicaragua to declare war on neighbors, for if Nicaragua becomes a barren desert, then the people there are screwed. So they seek to preserve their nation, and strike out.
Now, coming from a non-emotional perspective (see peace thread) I would say that now would be the time for world peace (with climate change). The nations would bind together and share the wealth.
Okay.
This would require dropping the neocon doctrine (see Wolfowitz's 1992 defense document, resurrected in 2001) that the US will not tolerate any rival to its power, in any sphere, using force to keep them down if necessary. As I've said before, this doctrine means using force to keep down the Europeans if ever we united as a single state. That isn't likely, but now we are seeing the Chinese asserting themselves as a significant power in their own right, and the White House doesn't like it one bit. Personally, I find ajaxfetish's comment much more sane than macho warmongering.

[Blodrast]

Unless China starts a genocide of their population to keep it down, they will have the largest population by like 2010.


They have had the largest population in the world for quite some time now.

[Marshal Murat]

Darn Wall Street Journal!

It doesn't mean that they won't need any fewer resources.

[Papewaio]

Unless China starts a genocide of their population to keep it down, they will have the largest population by like 2010.
They have alot of people thanking them for the investments on infranstructure, and that sort of money doesn't come without string.

China, while it doesn't have the ability to destroy America yet, they are rapidly progressing to such a position. The ability to destroy satellites is essential to defeating any modern power. Now, unless they want to destroy Russia, they have the aformentioned geopolitical options to ensure resources to feed their population, or they are facing food riots, and political reform isn't very far behind. Reform often means a reshuffling of politico's, or something along the lines of the French Revolution (anyone? anyone?)

It doesn't mean China is going to be doing it now, in 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, or 2050. They could clone 4000 cows and 5000 chickens. Land can support only so many people per square mile.


As mentioned they have the largest population and have had for some time. And that China has had the one child policy for some time.

In the future India will have the largest population, as they are the second largest nation and are doing nothing to slow down its population growth.

As for cloning animals...
a) It takes more resources then if they breed (you have to get a scientist involved to do what any rutting animal can).
b) meat takes up more land then rice
c) They are by no means capped out on population density. Look at Indonesia... 250 million plus and growing.

Also Taiwan would not be in an interesting situation, they may in fact join a sufficiently capitalist China.

Australia has stated in the not so distant past that if a conflict over Taiwan occured that they wouldn't automatically side with China.

A clearer way to view what is happening is to look as APEC... a lot of the locals are more then happy to buddy up with China above and beyond Japan...