Herman Cain Warns China Is Seeking ‘Nuclear Capability’

[jimmy olsen]

This country is so fucked, how can a man this ignorant be a frontrunner for a national party!

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/herman-cain-warns-china-is-seeking-nuclear-capability.php

Benjy Sarlin November 1, 2011, 10:58 PM 21612 302

Herman Cain may have some surprises at his first national security briefings should he win the presidency.

In an interview with PBS, Cain appears to suggest that Americans should consider China dangerous in part because they're pursuing "nuclear capability." In fact, China tested its first nuclear device in 1964 and has had a stockpile of warheads for decades.

The relevant passage:

    HERMAN CAIN: I do view China as a potential military threat to the United States.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: And what could you do as president to head that off?

    HERMAN CAIN: My China strategy is quite simply outgrow China. It gets back to economics. China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy — much bigger — but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China.

    And secondly, we already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defense a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity. So yes they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.

Hotair, one of the blogs to catch Cain's comment, suggests there is some slight ambiguity there — that he may be referring to nuclear-powered aircraft carriers — but the context makes it a close call at best.

Cain's foreign policy knowledge has been a liability in recent months and he's downplayed its importance overall.

"I'm ready for the 'gotcha' questions, and they're already starting to come," Cain said in a CBN interview last month. "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan, I'm going to say you know, I don't know. Do you know?"

[Eddie Teach]

So he should have said "greater" nuclear capability. Big whoop. You know how much these guys have to talk in a given day?

[MadImmortalMan]

So he should have said "greater" nuclear capability. Big whoop. You know how much these guys have to talk in a given day?

Yeah it's obviously a slip of the tongue. But hey we can still make fun of him.

[Barrister]

What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.

China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty.  The US is the most developed country in the world.  There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.

[Josquius]

it prays that China keeps growing until America and Europe have their shit back together. China is going to pop, we have to hope it is later rather than sooner or we're fucked.

[Ideologue]

What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.

China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty.  The US is the most developed country in the world.  There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.

Oh, there's a way we could outperform China.



Take that, Perm!

[Grinning_Colossus]

Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?

[Habbaku]

Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?

That's not the Russian Federation.

[Tonitrus]

Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?

That's not the Russian Federation.

Well, technically the Russian Federation was a member of the Soviet Union.  Of course, the name was more verbose than it is now...toss in a "socialist" here or there.

[Viking]

Before I want to criticize Caine too much, is he talking about Red or White China?

[Richard Hakluyt]

"China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy — much bigger — but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China."

I thought this was more dubious than the slip of the tongue on developing/increasing nuclear capability. It is arithmetically correct in the short term, but the exponential effects will still leave the USA standing in the longer term.

But then, in the longer term, China's demographics are poor and moving up the value chain is harder than the early phase of simply stopping from wilfully crippling the economy 

[Grinning_Colossus]

Why do cities in the Russian Federation have Soviet names?

That's not the Russian Federation.

Missiles are being launched at it from Bucharest, Czechoslovakia is split up. That's the Russian Federation.

[Martinus]

The map is generally weird. It has Eastern Germany for example.

[Ed Anger]

What strikes me as ridiculous is the notion that the US can and should outgrow China in terms of GDP.

China is an underdeveloped country with much of the population living in poverty.  The US is the most developed country in the world.  There's no way the US can outperform China - it's all a question of how does the US manage a growing China.

Oh, there's a way we could outperform China.



Take that, Perm!

Now that gives a true murder boner. 

[Camerus]

"China has a $6 trillion economy and they're growing at approximately 10 percent. We have a $14 trillion economy — much bigger — but we're growing at an anemic 1.5, 1.6 percent. When we get our economy growing back at the rate of 5 or 6 percent that it has the ability to do, we will outgrow China."

I thought this was more dubious than the slip of the tongue on developing/increasing nuclear capability. It is arithmetically correct in the short term, but the exponential effects will still leave the USA standing in the longer term.

But then, in the longer term, China's demographics are poor and moving up the value chain is harder than the early phase of simply stopping from wilfully crippling the economy 

I was even less impressed with his facile "oh, well, we'll get the US economy back to 5 or 6 percent growth."