I appreciate all the input. I think I finally figured out what they're up to with their bullpups. Based on everything that you've all said. I have a feeling that the Chinese have adopted the bullpup rifles not because of manufacturing ease, reduced cost factors or because they are more practical inside of vehicles. I seriously think that the Chinese military forces have adopted the bullpup design because it is a more compact rifle for urban/built-up area/MOUNT combat situations. I also think that bullpup actions would be better used in jungle warfare too than conventional or longer rifles. So I think that the Chinese military has now come to the realization that if they get into a war in a jungle, woodlands, vehicle to vehicle or in an urban combat situation that their bullpup rifles would be better and more maneuverable for the troops. What this SEEMS to indicate is that the Chinese aren't interested in long distance shooting or combat over like desert terrain, grasslands or prairie lands. They're looking for firearms that better fit their terrain, in general, than anything else. Interesting.
another reason can simply be that they look good on paper. the chinese need things to look good on paper, i can only say this in a sort of cultural understanding type thing.
Bingo. If you guys want to worry about something, worry about the fact that while us Americans are sitting around waiting for our welfare checks, every Chinese citizen over the age of 8 is waking up at 4 AM and scrambling to improve his/her lot and that of his/her family.
The Chinese aren't going to need any guns to take over the world. They've co-opted the "American way" -- that we discarded -- and they're running with it.
i'm not sure if this is diverting the thread as this may be the heart of the matter, but to contribute a few points.
i don't know that america has lost the productive ways of the past. certainly the work culture has left some things to be desired, certainly complacency is a concern but let me propose these:
in the light of development a more advanced nation must continue to produce but those products produced are not always going to remain labor based or even material based. america is still producing, we produce technology, services, we produce entire markets for goodness sake.
think of GB, how have they managed to stay an economic power with so little people, so little natural resources, etc? they stay on top by owning companies and markets, even more so, they do it internationally.
why is dubai a money fountain? oil is a factor but they're also the largest purveyers of trades services and throughways in the international community.
look at japan, their bread and butter isn't weaving of cloth or mining of ores (although they do smelt it). they have technology markets and production, they have "final product" productions.
the united states isn't going to become number one or stay number one by going back to weaving cloth, and bending all our own pipes, or forging all our own metal forms necessarily. at some point it's just economically sound to allow specializations that create more efficiencies and larger margins for profit, development etc.
what i do think is the problem is that in ORDER to do any of the above mentioned "developmental" pathways america has to be MUCH MORE serious about education and creating human capital. afterall that's the ONE RESOURCE that all these subsequent products and productions will come from. china's got a lot of people. they're not all stupid and by sheer numbers they can probably produce more educated people than us in the upcoming years. but we have some legacy items that cannot be purchased by anything but time. those legacy items are our industries and infrastructures related to education. AND THE FOREIGNERS ARE USING THEM! they can't get what we have at home so they come here! but WHY AREN'T WE USING OUR OWN STUFF???? if we keep giving it away and NOT capitalizing on it ourselves, we're in for some **** in the future.
what they learn in american schools to take home is worth so much more than their foreign student fees. why don't we take our own human capital development more seriously? i'm not in any way saying that foreign students are the threat, or that that's a national security issue, it's not. those who want education are going to get it. the national security issue is us not taking education and human capital development as seriously as "they" do.
