Top Scholar Predicts “Slow Motion Humanitarian Tragedy” in China

Stinging rebuke delivered during address to World Economic Forum in Dalian, China

NEW YORK, September 21, 2007 (CFAM.org) - Likening the Chinese one-child policy to a “slow-motion humanitarian tragedy,” prominent demographer Nicholas Eberstadt urged the Chinese government to “immediately and without reservation” scrap the coercive population control program that has been “a tragic and historic mistake.” Eberstadt delivered the stinging rebuke during an address to the World Economic Forum held in Dalian, China earlier this month.

Eberstadt told officials that while the population control program has achieved its objective of lowering the number of births in China, it “directly undermine[s] the country’s future development potential.”

According to Eberstadt’s research, by 2015 China’s working-age population of 15-64 year olds will be in a prolonged decline and in a generation, China’s labor force will likely be smaller than it is today. Between 2005 and 2030, China’s 15-24 year old population will decrease and face a projected 20 percent decline. Eberstadt emphasizes “the only part of working age population that stands to increase in size between now and 2030 is the over-50 group.” China’s aging population will experience a never-before-seen boom. By 2030, China’s 65-plus cohort could more than double and top 235 million.

Another startling outcome will be the undoing of 2500 years of Chinese cultural tradition, he projected. That is because the new face of Chinese culture would have a “4-2-1” composition: four grandparents, two parents and one child. The new equation will hamper economic development as it puts greater strains on the dwindling youth population. Unlike the situation in Japan, where a national pension system was already in place before the aging population began to rise, China has no such pension system. Elderly have depended on sons to provide for them in old age and with the rapid fertility decline, those sons will not exist. “How will the elderly in China get by in the world they will so soon be facing?” he asked.

Another consequence of China’s population policy has been the increasingly skewed gender imbalance. Naturally, about 105 baby boys are born for every 100 baby girls. Eberstadt reports that shortly after the advent of the one-child policy, China began to report biologically impossible disparities. Currently, the sex ratio at birth in China is 123 baby boys for every 100 girls. In a generation or less, China will have to deal with the problem of tens of millions of unmarriageable young men.

Eberstadt urged the Chinese government to abandon their population control policy as a means of easing “China’s incipient aging crisis, its looming family structure problems, and its worrisome gender imbalances” and encouraged the government to embrace human resources as a blessing which could “be the key to whether China succeeds in abolishing poverty and attaining mass affluence in the decades and generations ahead.”

Eberstadt said he could not be sure, but felt this could have been the first time such a presentation had been made in China. Though many Chinese demographers might agree with Eberstadt analysis, they have been reluctant to openly criticize the policy.

There is a name for the types of weapons you described: targets.

You have still not addressed the targeting problem.

As for the rest, do you have any idea how limited the engagement envelope of a "stinger" type missile is? Our aircraft will not need to get within five times the range of a "stinger" to take out a missile boat. The Hai Ying (Sea Eagle)(the sea launched version of the NATO named Silkworm) only has a range of about 45NM, much less than a Harpoon. It requires significantly more maintenance than its land based brethren. It also requires C4I equipment targeting with unique signatures. Kill that and you end the missile threat. Its predecessor, the Shang You (Upstream) missile suffered from electronic interference from other shipboard electronic systems and was relegated to small missile boats.

ICBMs loaded with incendiaries? Do you have ANY expertise in this field at all?

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

There is a name for the types of weapons you described: targets.
***You’ve fallen into a western-style thinking trap. Just like what the Vietnamese commanders said at the end of the war when they met with the americans and were confronted with the fact that they lost every single battle they were in. “You are correct, and it is irrelevant.” When America sees home videos on CNN of american jets taking out sampans filled with “innocent” civilians, those “targets” would have done their job. If the american jet jocks don’t have the stomach to wipe them out, the Sampan Navy will get in range with their missiles and take out ships.

You have still not addressed the targeting problem.
***OK, the chinese have an extended range missile that they regularly lob at Taiwan whenever they feel like disrupting an election. They have hundreds of these. The Circular Error of Probability (CEP) for those missiles is about a couple of hundred yards, so they can easily hit an aircraft carrier, even today. The chinese have been busy collecting technology such as DSP based targeting systems & infrared sensors and probably have the ability to program their missiles to look for a big, boxy infrared target in the open sea. It ain’t that hard.

As for the rest, do you have any idea how limited the engagement envelope of a “stinger” type missile is? Our aircraft will not need to get within five times the range of a “stinger” to take out a missile boat.
***And such an engagement with a Sampan flotilla will show up on CNN as american meanies taking out migrating villagers who just want to “peacably” settle in Taiwan. If the Americans shoot from their standoff range, they show up on CNN. If they come in close enough for visual confirmation, they get shot at. And if the american aircraft carrier that they sortied from is burning, what are their choices at that time?

Here’s what can happen when one of our own rockets misfires, let alone an enemy engagement:

http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2003/02/images_deck_landings/u124794.jpg

The Hai Ying (Sea Eagle)(the sea launched version of the NATO named Silkworm) only has a range of about 45NM, much less than a Harpoon. ....
***Excellent factual stuff, thanks.

ICBMs loaded with incendiaries?
***No. Long range missiles loaded with incendiaries. You fell into a strawman argument trap. The subpoint about the chinese having ICBM technology is for 2 purposes: 1) most people don’t know they have ICBM capability and 2) If the chinese have ICBM capability, going for shorter range targets is well within their goals.

Do you have ANY expertise in this field at all?
***Well, yes. I consider myself an expert in boundary layer control as well as ethernet and, lately, writing datasheets. But that’s a side note. When you write like that with an exaggeration, it’s intended as a mocking comment. I do not claim to be an expert in military affairs. I don’t have to be an expert to be able to engage in debate about such things on an amateur forum such as this. So either pipe down or back up the points you’re trying to make.

There’s a couple of pictures of the accident aboard the USS Forrestal at this site.

http://navysite.de/cvn/cv59.htm

July 29, 1967 - The worst accident aboard a US Navy surface vessel since WWII.

On July 29, 1967 the USS FORRESTAL was operating on Yankee Station off the coast of North Vietnam conducting combat operations. This was the fifth such day of operations and at 10:52am the crew was starting the second launch cycle of the day, when suddenly a Zuni rocket accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom into a parked and armed A-4 Skyhawk. The accidental launch and subsequent impact caused the belly fuel tank and a 1,000 pound bomb on the Skyhawk to fall off, the tank broke open spilling JP5 (jet fuel) onto the flight deck and ignited a fire. Within a minute and a half the bomb was the first to cook-off and explode, this caused a massive chain reaction of explosions that engulfed half the airwings aircraft, and blew huge holes in the steel flight deck. Fed by fuel and bombs from other aircraft that were armed and ready for the coming strike, the fire spread quickly, many pilots and support personnel were trapped and burned alive.
Fuel and bombs spilled into the holes in the flight deck igniting fires on decks further into the bowels of the ship. Berthing spaces immediately below the flight deck became death traps for fifty men, while other crewmen were blown overboard by the explosion.
Nearby ships hastened to the FORRESTAL’s aid. The ORISKANY (CV 34), herself a victim of a tragic fire in October 1966, stood by to offer fire-fighting and medical aid to the larger carrier. Nearby escort vessels sprayed water on the burning FORRESTAL and within an hour the fire on the flight deck was under control. The crew heroically fought the fire and carried armed bombs to the side of the ship to throw them overboard for 13 hours. Secondary fires below deck took another 12 hours to contain.

Once the fires were under control, the extent of the devastation was apparent. Most tragic was the loss to the crew, 134 had lost their lives, while an additional 64 were injured, this was and still remains the single worst loss of life on a navy vessel since the USS FRANKLIN (CV 13) was bombed in WWII. The ship proceeded to Cubi Point in the Philippines for temporary repairs. In only eight days enough repairs were made that she could start the long trip back to her home port of Norfolk, Virginia for permanent repairs. On her way home she was capable of operating aircraft if needed.

You still can not or will not address the targeting problems that the Chinese (and everyone else) have when shooting at something. In order to shoot at something you have to know where it is and where it will be when your weapon will arrive.

The Chinese do not have the ability to target our carriers with sufficient precision to launch. This also assumes that we let the shooters get within launch distance. Do you think that we don't have the means to defeat these missiles even if they are some how aimed correctly. We have EW, SAMs, and CIWS. That sounds like a pretty good defense in depth for something as big and slow as a Silkworm(v).

An invasion fleet is an invasion fleet. Sink it.

Your post concerning the Forrestal fire is completely irrelevant.

You are out of your league in this discussion and starting to look foolish.

It seems to me that you are the one who is completely out of his league in this discussion.

You are out of your league in this discussion and starting to look foolish. ... It seems to me that you are the one who is completely out of his league in this discussion.
***You only need to say it once. Saying it twice makes you look shrill. I claimed to be a member of an amateur forum. What is your expertise, Mr. Expert, and why are you so petulant? Deal with the facts and toss your ridiculous attitude.

I addressed the targeting. Infrared. Big, giant, nuclear powered infrared target in the middle of a cold ocean. A high schooler could build the circuit to target that. And they’re not silkworms, they’re long range missiles. You have a propensity to misread, distort, and otherwise use straw argumentation.

The Forrestal fire shows that a carrier can be knocked out of action by a fire, simple as that. Once the fire starts, the infrared signature can even be picked up by old, beat up satellites.

We had anti-missile technology in Gulf War I, and it was a SCUD that caused the most deaths in that war. All it takes is one missile to get through and the resulting fire will be like shining a spotlight on the carrier for all the other ordinance.

The Chinese do not have the ability to target our carriers with sufficient precision to launch.
***uhh, but they do have the ability to target Taiwan from their mainland with sufficient precision to knock out individual buildings. Are you intentionally misreading or looking for a brouhaha? Why the invective and intentional misreads? Usually that’s an attempt to hide ignorance or facts that are embarrassing.

This also assumes that we let the shooters get within launch distance.
***Let’s see. The chinese regularly launch missiles over Taiwan from their mainland. Hmmm. Wrong again.

Do you think that we don’t have the means to defeat these missiles even if they are some how aimed correctly.
***The Patriot batteries let SCUDs get through. SAMS are too slow for these missiles (again, so you don’t need to misread, we’re not talking about silkworms). EW? Early Warning Radar? So we get early warning, and try to shoot it down with SAMs that are slower than the missiles being targeted? CIWS? The Phalanx didn’t help the US Stark when 2 antiship missiles were aimed at it.

Since the time has come to put up or shut up, you need to deal with the facts. But I doubt you will do that, based upon your track record in this discussion so far. You seem to be more interested in raising the level of invective rather than dealing with the facts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.