How China and America match up

Many are crying wolf with the rise of China in the political and economic spheres. And now it's making its military better. Not to worry: China is not even close to matching the world's current superpower, America, in military or monetary means. Listed below are some starkly-contrasting differences between China and the United States.

But first, here are some telling charts and graphics from a recent assessment of American power by The Economist.




Key military differences between China and the US
China

Less people to answer to (at home) for mistakes

More people to answer to (internationally) for mistakes

Up-and-coming global power, still emerging

Non-democratic, authoritarian, "communist" — but economically liberalized to an extent — state

Fast-growing military; seeks military, political, and economic roles in region and world

Known for posturing, e.g. surprisingly testing anti-satellite missile

Looks out for its (economic) interests

2.3 million active armed forces

Some lay doubts to its ability to become number one

Over 1/20th of world GDP and about 1/5th of its population.

United States

Peaceful state with a generally positive reputation, historically

Established world superpower, de facto

Democratic, representative republic

Government's democratic structure makes for a more cautious political policy

Higher military spending

Entangled in Iraq (especially), and Afghanistan, with troops elsewhere abroad

Because of stretched military, doesn't have capacity to fight another war of choice at this time

Web of alliances

Total of 1.5 million troops in the most advanced, high-tech, and strongest military ever to exist

Dismayed with military modernization and economic growth of China

Over 1/4th of world GDP and less than 1/20th of its population

Plenty of soft enemies and thorns on its power hold in the international community

Pros and cons of Israel's Gaza raid

Here we go again: another Israeli excursion
Judging by previous experiences, how can Israel expect these raids to make things better? It will just make Palestinians more annoyed and spark even more terrorism. But since the matter is hardly void of opinion, here I present a list of "Pros" and "Cons" of the Israeli raid of Gaza.

Pros:

Helps with Israeli security*

Gets rid of some terrorists

Weakens Hamas*

Good for domestic politics; makes Olmert not seem soft

Secures Israeli military personnel

Increases power and leverage in future negotiations

Cons:

Creates more Palestinian strife

Kills, injures, and destroys

Weakens support abroad, save the US

Puts semi-stable Palestine unity government in disarray

Creates more terrorism (see fire paradox)

Does not accomplish mission and objectives*

Cuts chances of diplomacy

Infringes on human rights, political sovereignty (if officials are arrested like in previous raids)

Palestinians support radicals more because of anguish and need for security against Israel, which appears more malevolent than ever

Moderate Abbas loses support of people because of above reason

* - Questionable

Why are we obsessed with terrorism?

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

One underlying cause for the terrorism/counterterrorism culture is the public’s obsession with terrorism.

Do you want the ultimate in political change tactics, whether it is terrorism or counterterrorism that causes that change, using fear as a tool? To be able to do so, one must first understand why people are so drawn to terrorism.

Global health, the environment, climate change, poverty, AIDS, water, and other issues are far more pressing than terrorism. It kills relatively few and should be minor in the eyes of the public, right?

Like plane crashes, terrorism is unpredictable, sporadic, spontaneous, sudden, often human-caused, mysterious-seeming; and, unlike plane crashes, unscientific. It has no rationale — or so observers think.

People's obsession with terrorism helps explain why politicians use it against their own people — whether in original terrorism or a spin on the original (i.e. some form of counterterrorism) — and why extremist rebels use it in the first place.

Here is a (partial) list of why people, and their news media, are so attracted to terrorism:

Abstract in nature (like politics and religion);

People cannot grapple with terror like other health/sociological threats;

It is political; ties into human emotion and politics;

Violence and fear (like some crime stories);

Personal attachments (could this happen to me?);

Some sort of sexiness (from all the hype);

Shocking, spontaneous;

Deep connection to inner-psyche (exact cause is unknown, explaining speculation);

Does not develop (like a disease or something like that), unpredictable (things that happen suddenly produce more attraction, coverage);

Human interest (goes psychologically deep);

Accomplishes motives of fear and attention, like martyrs do;

The act of understanding why people use terrorism, or trying to leads to more obsession with terrorism itself;

Superficially evil, perfect villain, but more layers lie beneath (like with an onion);

The change it creates, human obsession with change or lack thereof;

I.e., deals with change — a constant source of human interest;

Unlike many other crimes;

I.e., often committed with no specificity (can have a target, but no intent on target like with a common murder, for instance, in which which the killer has a reason for the death of the specify person they kill);

Just the word "terrorism" is extremely political and emotional, holding strong connotations depending on one's subjective, often political view of the word and the related semantics.