Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 451 +-   China Considering Cuts In Rare-Earth Metal Exports on Wednesday September 09, @07:17AM

Posted by kdawson on Wednesday September 09, @07:17AM
from the thulium-and-thalium dept.
government
science
SillySnake sends in a report from the Telegraph on draft plans in China to restrict exports of rare earths. "Beijing is drawing up plans to prohibit or restrict exports of rare earth metals that are produced only in China and play a vital role in cutting edge technology, from hybrid cars and catalytic converters, to superconductors, and precision-guided weapons. A draft report by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has called for a total ban on foreign shipments of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium. Other metals such as neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum will be restricted to a combined export quota of 35,000 tonnes a year, far below global needs."
story

Related Stories

: by
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The new "oil" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) on Wednesday September 09, @07:21AM (#29364121)

    Just what the world economy needs. A single-country "cartel" that will cause prices to greatly rise. This should be interesting to watch.

    I guess rare-earth metals are the new "oil".

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 09, @07:26AM (#29364173) Homepage Journal

      Just what the world economy needs. A single-country "cartel" that will cause prices to greatly rise. This should be interesting to watch.

      I guess rare-earth metals are the new "oil".

      Some key points you may have missed from the article:

      Mr Stephens said China had put global competitors out of business in the early 1990s by flooding the market, leading to the closure of the biggest US rare earth mine at Mountain Pass in California - now being revived by Molycorp Minerals.

      So, if this goes through, we merely open the mine in California. I'll feel better about paying a higher price for something if it is created under tighter environmental regulations than what they have in China. Cheap labor and lack of an EPA and potential corrupted officials? Of course they can undercut California!

      Secondly a rare metals dealer in Australia said

      This isn't about the China holding the world to ransom. They are saying we need these resources to develop our own economy and achieve energy efficiency, so go find your own supplies.

      So your analogy is lacking in many ways. We can refine the metals here and China needs them for their own growing demand.

      • by raddan (519638) * on Wednesday September 09, @07:34AM (#29364237)
        On the other hand, cost drives innovation. As the article stated, it may take several years to bring the old rare-earth mines back into operation. In that time, we either pay more, or use our engineering degrees and come up with workarounds. I have a feeling that the latter may frequently be the case. For instance, if rare-earths are required to manufacture hard disk drives, SSDs (which I assume do not require these metals since they require no magnets) will probably become favorable.

        China's move may affect regular people but I suspect not. This is probably more important to you if you're in manufacturing or trade.
        • by jonbryce (703250) on Wednesday September 09, @07:45AM (#29364321) Homepage

          Or alternatively we buy our hard drives from Chinese manufacturers, which I think is what they want to happen..

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 09, @09:03AM (#29365307)

          Frankly, I miss the days of over-engineered machines built of inferior materials.

          I have wood working machines from the early 1900's that are more durable, accurate, and mammoth than the cheap plastic shit you buy today.

          Funny thing is, they still work. Like new.

          If this means we actually start over-engineering and building things to -last- again, I'm all for it.

      • by cats-paw (34890) on Wednesday September 09, @08:38AM (#29364985) Homepage

        I'll feel better about paying a higher price for something if it is created under tighter environmental regulations than what they have in China. Cheap labor and lack of an EPA and potential corrupted officials? Of course they can undercut California!

        Isn't this the problem ? There is no such thing as "free trade". We're all Ferengi now, the profit is what's important. The mine should have not been allowed to close in the first place. It's ridiculous to say companies have to compete when the competition is an autocratic country with no environmental laws and other "advantages".

        And no, the answer is not to weaken our environmental laws, that's called the race to the bottom, and I don't want to run in that race.

        Child labor, lack of environmental laws, repressive regimes, none of it matters when it comes to "free trade".

      • by Terje Mathisen (128806) on Wednesday September 09, @11:15AM (#29367103)

        Until about 10 years ago, there were many magnesium manufacturers around the world, including one in my home town of Porsgrunn (in Norway).

        When China decided that light metals was a crucial market for them, they started a bunch of very low-tech/high-pollusion magnesium smelters, and many/most Western competitors folded.

        In the latest (for the year 1998) SFT (Norwegian EPA) regulations for the Porsgrunn factory (in norwegian [bmi.sft.no]), the limit on some pollutants was set to maximum 1 gram/year, I suspect the Chinese smelters are many orders of magnitude above this level.

        Terje

        • by lambent (234167) on Wednesday September 09, @07:46AM (#29364325)

          Our oil fields are not dry. Our demand outstrips domestic production. It's just easier to buy refined oil from other countries. The bottleneck has been our craptacular refineries for some decades, now.

          We have lots of choices of where to get oil, including the choice to stop using oil. It's just easier to pay someone else to do it for us.

          I assume the same is true of these rare earth metals.

            • by Paua Fritter (448250) on Wednesday September 09, @08:20AM (#29364761)

              Actually the bottleneck has been the impossibility of bringing additional refining capacity online in the US.

              True. And actually this isn't just the case in the USA; there are virtually no new refineries anywhere in the world.

              But actually the main hurdle isn't the NIMBY syndrome or over-regulation - it's a simple matter of return on investment. No-one wants to build a refinery because they take a long time to build, and a long time to recoup your investment, and the world's oil supply is known to be running out. Globally, oil-fields are now considered to be at peak production levels; that's to say, it's unlikely that there will ever be more oil being pumped than there is today. So building new refining capacity is a poor investment. Instead, people are just making do with what there is. That's why Iran is now importing refined petroleum from Venezuela.

            • by BlueStrat (756137) on Wednesday September 09, @09:03AM (#29365319)

              Not dry, but not nearly enough to supply us. If we stopped importing oil and relied on just our remaining oil, we wouldn't even be able to power the country for a year.

              Well then, we need to tell the environmental groups to shut up and start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico where there were new huge deposits just discovered and in all the other places where they scream either about some lizard, worm, fish, or where they're completely talking out of their ass like with Caribou in Alaska which absolutely love pipelines, etc. Their numbers skyrocket because of the favorable conditions. We also need to tell the NIMBY crowd tough toodles too.

              I'm sick to death of the people who scream bloody murder about domestic oil drilling while expecting society to provide them with a lifestyle, technology, and consumer goods & services that demand we do things they protest about. You can't have it both ways. TANSTAAFL.

              Technology and our knowledge & skills have advanced and we can now drill with far, far less impact than in the '60s, or even the '90s. The same goes for mining.

              Resource infrastructure is really where the US is lacking and what drives the US to engage in much of the types of foreign-policy nastiness so many dislike in order to obtain what our modern society needs to sustain itself while refusing to pay the price ourselves. There are resources the country *must* have to sustain itself and our lifestyles.

              If we prevent those resources from being obtained domestically, then we'll have to live with making nice with countries that abuse their people, trample freedom, are militarily aggressive, support terrorism, and want to harm the US & the West in general. And who, by the way, also don't give a crap how much they pollute the planet. We just end up outsourcing our pollution and enable bad people to do bad things.

              At least if we're drilling in ANWAR, the Gulf, and offshore in California, or mining in California and elsewhere domestically, we can limit the environmental impact which won't happen if we're getting our resources from China, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

              We can mitigate our oil consumption to an extent, but it will realistically take 3 to 5 decades to make a truly significant impact unless we are prepared to allow many people to suffer and many to die unnecessary deaths. We will still need large amounts of oil to sustain plastics, medicines, etc even if we reduce transportation-related uses significantly.

              Or, alternatively, we can just keep whining about domestic oil drilling and domestic mining, in which case little will change except for things getting worse.

              Strat

              • by ZekoMal (1404259) on Wednesday September 09, @09:09AM (#29365389)
                I'm not against drilling; drill away. The problem is that there isn't enough; even if we just started drilling in every spot we could, we wouldn't have enough. It's. Not. Sustainable. Every time we find a new pocket of oil, everybody falls silent and slows down work on alternative energy. Look at our alternative energy options: all of them rely on oil in some way. We have no plans, and drilling to fix our oil problems is so short term that it's laughable.
              • by jbengt (874751) on Wednesday September 09, @12:47PM (#29368609)
                No long term need to drill in expensive, hard to reach places. The US has plenty of matural gas and coal, which could replace much of the oil when costs rise enough to get people to do the engineering.
      • Re:The new "oil" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hurricane78 (562437) <navid DOT zamani AT googlemail DOT com> on Wednesday September 09, @08:57AM (#29365227)

        Uuum, what have the Chinese nationals to do with their asshole government? They are not their government. It's like punishing you for the murderings by the US Army in in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't you feel unfairly treated?

        Perhaps they even go to American schools to *avoid* "their" government.

        It's people with your mindset that create hatred against a whole nation for the fault of a few.

      • Re:The new "oil" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by srealm (157581) <prez@nosPam.goth.net> on Wednesday September 09, @09:05AM (#29365349) Homepage

        This is typical protectionist crap. Sorry, but you may be right about businesses thinking short term, but if America starts banning foreign nationals from its schools, and slapping tariffs on foreign imports, how does that make America any better than China?

        And for the record, America DOES still slap tariffs on foreign imports into this country. Usually at the behest of the powerful lobbies. Ever look at things like sugar and wheat imports? Both have either rather large tariffs, or just subsidies for the domestic industry. Why? Because the industry lobbies for those products demanded it. And it has caused a lot of friction with America's trading partners.

        Hell, I remember a 'free trade' agreement a few years ago with Australia where not only did America put tariffs on Australian wheat imports (because of pressure from the US wheat lobby), they also insisted as part of their free trade deal that Australia adopt something similar to the DMCA as part of the deal - at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA. So if you really believe America has been doing other countries a favor in it's trading practices (Food for Oil anyone? Or how about withholding aid money, which is supposed to be completely unrelated to trade), then you're deluded.

        In short, protectionism is bad no matter what. Now whether China is banning these exports because it truly doesn't have enough to satisfy domestic demand, and thus can't afford to supply foreign demand, or they're trying to use this threat to gain more concessions from the international community is irrelevant. Instituting protectionist policies won't help Sino-American relations, and considering, as you have said, America relies so heavily on China for it's manufacturing of almost everything we buy, America just can't afford to ruin it's relationship with yet another country, especially one it relies so heavily on.

        America used to be able to take the high moral ground, and used to be viewed in a generally favorable light in the world. It's America's own greed and arrogance (not to mention going around the world like a bull in a china shop sticking it's nose in everyone else's business) that has tarnished this reputation. The election of Obama has actually started to repair this a little, but only when America starts playing fair with the rest of the world again (ie. treating other countries as equals, as opposed to approaching each trade deal as a "we want this, give it to us or else you're not our friend anymore!" deal) will it actually gain respect again. You seem quick to cry 'foul!' when another country starts using the same tactics America has been using for decades against America. You (ie. America) wrote these new trading rules, don't be surprised when someone else plays by them.

      • Re:The new "oil" (Score:5, Interesting)

        by linzeal (197905) on Wednesday September 09, @09:14AM (#29365465) Homepage Journal

        Ok, mister xenophobe.

        Why shouldn't China be entitled to use its own resources to build out its own economy? China has a horrible standard of living for the amount of production present in the country and the pollution that goes along with it. I hope they use it all for domestic green energy projects, because frankly they need it more than we do where going "green" is more a luxury than anything. Building green jobs here with our own rare earths is entirely possible considering we have far more known rare earth ore deposits than they do. So what exactly are you complaining about, that we can't rape their country for all the resources? They have a billion people and it is highly unlikely they will ever have the same standard of living as the US in our lifetime but the very least we could do is not bitch and moan every time China does something nice for its own citizens.

        You know, I would rather deport people like you than hard working or studying immigrants. Why don't you all go down to the south of the US and secede, this time the rest of us northern folk won't stop you. Well considering there is hardly any natural resources in the south besides coal and oil you can all have your coal power plants and big trucks and you won't need to worry about new-fangled technologies irritating you. You can all live gloriously embittered lives scapegoating the rest of the world for your problems as you walk around yelling in the swamps, marshes and hurricane-prone areas of the gulf states like some sort of swamp curmudgeon. You could yourself America for Americans only or something. Build yourself a Lou Dobbsian wall around your entire country to keep Yankees and Mexicans out. Give all those janitorial, landscaping and construction jobs back to Americans because we all know how much Americans love doing menial labor for low wages without health insurance. Right, mister xenophobe?

      • by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday September 09, @10:38AM (#29366655) Journal
        is EXACTLY what has gotten us to where we are. China is in a cold war with us and it needs to be addressed.

        I TRUST that you are kidding about tariffs, yes? They do not work. The issue is that China was given MFN and into WTO by promising to open their borders and to free their money. All good. Problem is that China has not LIVED up to their word. They still have barriers up and most of all, the money is not traded freely. It is in a "basket" that is controlled by their gov. In addition, they allow pollution (co2 and other ) to be emitted in large amounts to give an even larger boost to low costs. Our energy bill is going to be a disaster and will encourage China,India,Mexico, etc to pollute more to take more jobs.

        So, here is my solution:
        1. Pollution is a serious issue, but so are economic issues. Kill the new energy bill before it gets implemented. Instead put in a TRUE cap/tax. We need to put in a cap on our CO2, and then put in a tax on ALL GOODS (local and imported). It should be based on the pollution that comes from the areas that the good was made from. That means that each country has a sliding scale based on CO2, and ideally the pollutions such as SO2, Mercury, etc. To implement this all at once would hurt the world. Instead, create a max of say 2-3% and than slowly raise that several percent each year. That gives each nation the opportunity to change (including America).
        2. Drop the MFN for all nations. Nearly all the countries that are part of that were for political reasons only. That needs to be stopped. Instead, create a new MFN and set up the conditions in which ALL NATIONS that meet it would get it. It should be a limited set of conditions.
          • freely traded money (EUdollar is freely traded; Yuens -> dollar is fixed).
          • Free trade. Not sure exactly HOW free, but most if not all goods should be allowed to move back and forth. Exceptions should be made for certain goods. For example, NAFTA was overall good. It has helped Mexico and Canada.
          • A minimum standard of an environmental condition. That would prevent countries from subsidizing the goods by degrading the world. Personally, I would prefer Canada as minimum. MUCH cleaner than most. We would probably just use ours though.
          • A minimum wage and labor condition.
          • A minimum education condition (such as requiring all children in school up to a certain age), etc.

          If we do the above, then there will be no real need for free trade acts. What is really needed is to make certain that we avoid exceptions. There are a number of countries that we allow to have one-way trade with us and do little to nothing to help those countries.

        If the above is done by the west, it would bring up conditions all over the world. EU has talked about doing Free Trade agreements with Latin America, but they want to use it to push better conditions for the citizens. I have to say that it is not a bad idea, but I think the above is even better.

  • Update (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dingadong (1321301) on Wednesday September 09, @07:21AM (#29364127)
    Terrorists found in Beijing and Shanghai, U.S. Troops invade.
    • Re:Update (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Stu101 (1031686) on Wednesday September 09, @07:26AM (#29364179)

      Issue with that is that I think China, unlike Iraq, Iran and Saudi could stand up for themselves.

      Don't forget they DO have WMD, massive military complexes and stolen US designs for highly deadly weapons.

      Then there is the cyber angle. I suspect America could be pwned quite quick.

      Lastly, who is gonna supply walley word with cheap tupperware and lawnmowers to the post nuke surviviors. There is no way that could happen.

      China is the new economy. Western Europe is just on a downhill spiral.

       

      • China doesn't really need WMDs or stolen designs to hold off an invasion. Conventional weapons combined with their sheer manpower would make it a suicidal proposal to attack them on their own turf. It's not exactly Iraq.
          • Re:Update (Score:5, Insightful)

            by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Wednesday September 09, @08:02AM (#29364497)

            I always make the argument, what if China decided one day to the next that 300 million (about a quarter of their country) decided to go for a walk and moved to the US via Alaska. Do you really think anybody could stop 300 million people? Answer NO!

            I don't think anyone really has to. There isn't enough food between China and Alaska, or between Alaska and CONUS, to feed 300 million people. So if the Chinese decided to do something like this, we could reasonably expect the one survivor to be completely unnoticed in the trail of 300,000,000 corpses along the way.

            • ...trail of 300,000,000 corpses

              The grizzly bears, wolves, and cougars would be well fed.
              Always look on the bright side of life!

          • Re:Update (Score:4, Insightful)

            by pjt33 (739471) on Wednesday September 09, @08:18AM (#29364725)

            China has a lot of coastline, but even so I imagine that most of its population aren't capable of swimming the Bering Straits, so boats will be a serious limiting factor on the number of people they can move.

      • Re:Update (Score:5, Funny)

        by 4D6963 (933028) on Wednesday September 09, @07:46AM (#29364327)

        China is the new economy. Western Europe is just on a downhill spiral.

        No. We are Willie Wonka. China is the Oompa Loompas.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Then there is the cyber angle. I suspect America could be pwned quite quick.

        Bearing in mind just about every router/switch in the US Gubment has "Made in China" on them do you honestly think there are no back doors?

  • That's ok (Score:3, Funny)

    by Joebert (946227) on Wednesday September 09, @07:23AM (#29364143) Homepage
    That's ok, we still have plenty of Uranium...
  • by Benson Arizona (933024) on Wednesday September 09, @07:24AM (#29364153) Homepage
    Let's hope that they don't stop dilithium shipments!
  • by valinor89 (1564455) on Wednesday September 09, @07:43AM (#29364307)
    I think that if they do so they won't mind if we ( as in the other western countries) put prohibitions and restrictions of our own in other product importations. We could revive our cloth, electrodomestic, chemical, (whatever) old industries. It might be a bit expensive at first (mostly for those multinationals ) but then we can be sure of better occupation rates. I's a shame that this is only wishfull thinking...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, please, let's unlearn everything from the Great Depression [voxeu.org] in the middle of a recession. What could possibly go wrong?

    • by khchung (462899) on Wednesday September 09, @08:11AM (#29364607) Journal

      It does not even make sense! China restricts exports and you propose retaliation by restricting imports?!

      I assume you live in US (who else always talked about reviving local industries?), do you even know how many export restrictions there are in the US? Crypto, high-tech stuff, whatever vaguely related to "national security", you name it.

      All countries (except those that have already became a vassal state of the US) restricts exports of critical resources, and this is allowed in WTO treaties. Examples from countries all over the world include restricting natural resources, science & technology, and even critical infrastructure (you do know that US blocked a company from buying the operations of the Panama Canal for "national security" reasons?).

      Only in /. would this non-news story becomes news worthy to make the front page.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Sadly, we're well beyond that now. A trade war with China now would likely hurt the U.S. a *LOT* more than the U.S. 30 years of "free trade and free markets" aren't something you can just turn away from now without a total economic collapse. Most of our largest retailers now are all but owned by China.
  • and finally call China out on it's myriad of violations? The US and Europe seem content over bickering about Airbus and Boeing when in actuality, those two companies' violation(if any) are a real drop in the bucket compared to China's insanely flagrant violations. However, the US is an addict hooked on selling China our debt, instead of oh I don't know, not invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 we decided it was a much better idea to sell ourselves lock stock and barrel to the Chinese. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
    • by Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) on Wednesday September 09, @07:56AM (#29364423)

      Fat chance. The US and Western Europe are indeed addicted to the unsustainably cheap supply of Chinese credit and cheap labor. We effectively wink at them gobbling up global resources so they can be churned through a cheap labor pool and nonexistent health/safety regimens in order to satiate our desire for a high standard of living at minimal cost. China never had any real intention to abide by the WTO's rules and viewed membership as a national pride issue. Don't hold your breath waiting for China to alter its behavior even if the WTO adds some stank to their toothless regulations.

  • by Maltheus (248271) on Wednesday September 09, @08:15AM (#29364673)

    Maybe they're getting tired of exchanging their wealth for our paper. I admire the way China is focused like a laser on their infrastructure and the acquisition of raw materials, while we're busy making up new problems to solve as a way of avoiding the very serious ones we already have. Perhaps if we focused on production, rather than consumption, we might have a little extra wealth to spend on our own decaying infrastructure.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Perhaps if we focused on production, rather than consumption, we might have a little extra wealth to spend on our own decaying infrastructure.

      Production is icky and bad for the environment.

  • Africa (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shag (3737) <dan AT birchalls DOT net> on Wednesday September 09, @10:25AM (#29366503) Homepage

    Another big source of uncommon metals is sub-Saharan Africa - for example, something like 80% of the world's supply of either Cobalt or Coltan comes from mines in the Congo. And China has been making big inroads into that region too, in terms of international aid and trade.

    There are times that being an officially godless commie state comes in handy, really. US shows up and says "we'll give you aid money as long as you don't promote safe sex, and oh, sorry, our business community is a little too nervous to really trade with you." China shows up and just says "look, we want to do business; you have resources we need."

    Unsurprisingly, African governments are talking more to China these days.

    • The giant magnet. Pull asteroids into Earth's orbit to rain firey hell on your enemies..

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Or maybe someone could be held accountable.

      You mean like when China executed several management types found "responsible" for these incidents? That type of accountable?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Makes perfect sense: we won't export "super computers" like the Playstation to China. China had to figure out what they have that we want and then squeeze it. With all the "green" technology relying on electric motors, we need those rare earth magnets. Bravo, China. Bravo.
        • Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:5, Insightful)

          by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Wednesday September 09, @08:26AM (#29364849)
          Do you really expect a country that at least used to charge families for the bullets used to execute family members to act in a humanitarian way?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            NO. I expect them to exact revenge.
            • Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:5, Insightful)

              by MrNaz (730548) * on Wednesday September 09, @09:48AM (#29365955) Homepage

              Revenge? It's not revenge. It's their resources, they can CHOOSE to sell it to us, or they can CHOOSE to hoard it for their own use, or they can CHOOSE to turn it into a life sized replica of the pyramids just because they can. That's the nature of it being THEIRS.

              Looking at the history of things like rubber, tea, diamonds and oil, it would seem that we are not aware that we have no God given right to the resources of others, no matter how much we tell ourselves we need it for our survival. Has UK/US historical foreign policy gotten that far into the public mindset that we now get all angsty and self-righteous whenever some country decides that they need their resources more than we need their resources? Seriously people, if we're going to think this way and then acquiesce to the military being used to go fetch those resources and destroy the other country in the process, then lets at least not act all surprised when they get fed up and fly planes into our buildings.

            • Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:4, Insightful)

              by compro01 (777531) on Wednesday September 09, @09:27AM (#29365659)

              This distinctly reminds me of an old joke.

              A man walks into a Chinese restaurant and sees the owner reading the paper and smiling. He asks what he's happy about and he points to the front page of the paper which says "100000 Chinese killed in combat!" with "10000 Japanese killed". The man is confused as to why such a stunning loss would be cause for happiness. The Chinese man replies "At this rate, there soon won't be any Japanese left!".

              China is BIG. They've got roughly 1/5 of the world's people. They've got more people than the EU, the US, Japan, and even Russia all put together.

                • Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Wednesday September 09, @11:52AM (#29367699) Homepage Journal

                  I hear ignorance speaking. China is definitely moving into the 21st century. Their arms may not yet be equal to everything the west has, but they are catching up.

                  But, more importantly, China can suffer losses at a 100 to 1 ratio, and win against any competitor. If it came to war, the west would either form a coalition, or lose. Oh yeah, we could go nuclear - but so can they. Warring with China isn't something that you want to see happen. It wouldn't be a walk in the park.

                  Perhaps most people are unaware that China has been involved in all the wars in Asia over the decades? Mostly indirectly - supplying "advisors", technical advice and training, putting observers on the ground, and offering moral and political support.

                  N. Korea still stands as a thorn in the west's side.

                  There is no longer a "South" Vietnam.

                  Discounting China's ability to fight, based on the poor quality of outdated hardware is foolish and dangerous.

                  More, China isn't looking for a conventional war, any more than we are. "Assassin's Mace" is a plan to gain world domination via assymetrical warfare. The restrictions on strategic resources is part of that plan, just as the flooding (devaluing) of the market in past years was part of that plan.

                  Go ahead, mock the "sleeping giant", if you will. It only exposes your ignorance.

                    • Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:4, Insightful)

                      by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Wednesday September 09, @02:10PM (#29369883) Homepage Journal

                      Problem is, we aren't fighting, let alone choosing our battles. China's export industry is expanding throughout Africa and Asia at exponential rates, while our exports shrink. Worse, American corporations are actively exporting technology and jobs to China. IBM, among others, are moving out of the country.

                      The corporate world has largely abandoned the United States, and many of those who have abandoned us have thrown in with China.

                      There IS a war, of sorts, and China appears to be winning it.

                      Our military might may outclass China's, but military muscle is useless without logistics. All of the world's greatest military leaders have been masters logistics. Poor logistics killed the German army on the eastern front, remember? Most people claim that the Russian winter killed that army, but in fact, it was the lack of logistics. If humans on one side of the war survived the winter, then the humans on the other side of the war could have survived - had they planned ahead, and provided the shelter, clothing, and food required to survive such an environment.

                      "when you use deception" and "I am wary of playing hardball with China". I assure you, China is playing hardball, and we are being deceived.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        ...and rare earth magnates at that, since most of us on this planet are not.
Your computer account is overdrawn. Please see Big Brother.