1. Buying US Treasuries 2. *waves hands* 3. Nothing
I doubt that will prevent anybody from redeeming their mature US Treasury Bonds for... dollars.
To get from "buying US Treasury bonds" to "nothing" you have to claim that dollars are nothing. I can go to the supermarket and trade those dollars for beer. So, "ha!"
(And yes, trust in the repayment is part of the value. That is already factored into the price. Welcome to middle school economics class. For extra credit, look up the credit ratings on US bonds.)
Here is another Russian source that includes some relevant facts you left out, mainly the part about Ukraine having not actually done what you accuse because you excessively focus on a "vote" when there are more steps than a single vote for a law to be enacted, or repealed. The law wasn't repealed. http://en.ria.ru/world/2014030...
Reading your description, or the RT description, it would appear that the pro-EU groups in Ukraine supported the repeal. The fact is that the Parliament took an unpopular vote, that resulted in Ukrainian speakers in Kyiv protesting(!), and none of the major pro-EU politicians supported that vote. None of the pro-EU candidates in the recent elections supported repealing the 2012 law.
So while it is "half true" that they voted to repeal the law, it is not true as stated, and certainly not true in the claimed implication that the pro-EU Ukrainians are anti-Russian-speakers.
Regardless of how you feel about the protests, there were free, fair, credible, and widely recognized elections after those events. Fail.
The current government of Ukraine is 100% legit by any standard. Russia engages in misdirection, which you follow quite a ways here, but they don't have any actual complaint about the most recent elections, nor have they brought any complaints to the UN Security Council.
If somebody threatens you and leaves it ambiguous, then that is a credible threat; it leaves you having to act as if it might happen, because you're left thinking it might happen.
There is actually a lot of really aware and sophisticated legal history of this stuff, because of organized crime taking such threats to the level of an art. "You don't want `something' to happen to your family, do you? Nobody wants anything bad to happen to their family. When little Billy goes to Famousname Elementary School every morning, you want him to know he is safe. When he takes his lunch break at 11:35am, you want to know he is safe." That is totally actionable as a threat, especially in the context of trying to coerce a behavior, like, "Big John doesn't like it when you write bad things about him in the paper. Then his mind is all full of bad things."
Interestingly, the same is true if you want to make a joke about yelling fire in a theater while actually in a theater; it is ill advised, and it is your responsibility to make sure that it is clearly a joke. (to a normal, reasonable person like the other real people in the theater) If it is ambiguous, and people are left to think, "wait, is there really a fire?!" then all it will take is one of them running for the door and you "yelled fire in a theater."
A similar thing with threats; if you tell the joke to somebody who is NOT the target of the threat, that is pretty safe. Even if they can't tell if you're joking. But if you want to tell the target of the threat the... threat... it is up to you to make it clear as a joke if it is indeed a joke.
The "you need better developers" fallacy is exactly that, a fallacy - it doesn't matter how good your developers are
It is widely understood to be true that Java has, as an actual, real-life thing in its "pros" column (and in its "cons" column) that it is easier to use by low quality, replaceable programmers. That is not an original claim, or something that is disputed by mainstream sources. That is true both for people who support Java, and those who are against it.
Here is a video interview with Larry Wall, one of the most respected (and qualified in linguistics) language designers, who says, "because it is sort-of considered an `industrial language,' and programmers are sort-of interchangeable parts, managers like it for that reason..."
No, Dilbert is an engineer who is good at math but too socially retarded to get a real job for a company that respects him. It is presumed that he was rejected by all the companies that are desirable to work for, and feels trapped.
You don't really have any citations for anything you said.
I didn't cite it because their blog posts, first blaming Ruby/Rails and a few months later, retracting that and explaining the problems, are some of the most popular blog posts in the history of Ruby, and a major milestone in the public discussion of these issues.
If you don't even know about it, you're too far outside the developer community for my comment to have been targeted at you. Sorry, I only worry about the nerds when I post. Everybody else can suck it. And if a nerd didn't know, they'd find a search engine, and ask, instead of whining at the internet to contain citations.
OO can't be to promote re-use, because it is just a type of structured programming, and all structured programming is promoting re-use very very heavily. That was never an advantage of OOP.
But what he's talking about is the other direction; the library should protect itself from bad clients, but the client shouldn't have to protect itself from bad libraries. The library should be able to encapsulate its own testing. That is true in any structured programming paradigm.
And specifically as to C++, that is perhaps why OOP using plain C is so much cleaner (in the best case where strict conventions and best practices are followed, such as glib/gdk/gtk)
No, you can choose to agree with the opinion, or not to.
Force requires an actual action. If you decide your only choices are to believe, or deny reality, it sounds like you already agree with the opinion, and have some cognitive dissonance because it conflicts with what you expected to believe. Notice how the other party isn't involved in any of that? Those actions are all your own.
Judging from your user id, a few decades before your great grandpappy was born.
And I did use a bunch of "magic words," like kill, cook alive, etc.
Also, I paralleled a hate crime and attempted to let the horror of it speak for itself; I made no attempt to explicitly declare the actions as deplorable.
I stand by my claim, though. There will be outliers, and you can find excessive responses to art, and ignoring real violence.
You didn't even address the main point, which was that you were spewing bigoted anti-Americanism based on an outlier that will exist in any populous nation, and accused us of being unique in having negative outliers.
I clearly meant the largest holder that isn't... ourselves. In the context of trade wars and international relations, it should be assumed that the external parts are being discussed.
Loans to them don't matter, because the debt is mostly one-way, China buying US bonds. A tiny bit of debt in the other way can be subtracted off the top and ignored. Doesn't matter who it is to or the details, because it is a tiny, tiny bit.
Well, you know, of course it is human nature to feel a little temporary [whatever] when the critics talk.
But like another artist once said; the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
So they really "have no complaint" about the critics being, uhm, critical. The work either sucks, so who cares, or it is worth talking about, so critics talking about it provides just desserts.
You conflate having an opinion with "forcing" it on people.
1. You have an opinion 2.... 3. violence!
Notice the whole claim of "violence" is predicated on the word "forcing," which in this case is a verb. Notice the complete lack of action though. So just from that we can see it is a false accusation; the only action taken was giving his own opinion. But you lie, and claim he took an action to "force" his opinion on you. But you're not forced to believe every opinion you hear; that is silly, and shows a misunderstanding even over the word opinion. Then you double down on the lie, by claiming the "force" not only exists, but was violent.
If you find depictions of hookers being abused and murdered, or the dead bodies of women posed seductively, as life-defining, you are not typical.
Getting arrested for making death threats is also not "typical," and I have no problem believing that these people hold both of these characteristics.
I agree with what you're saying, but I did want to point out that in the "Goth" and similar communities it is common for both men and women to role-play necrophilia, and they generally associate that with their whole personal and artistic sense of self; fake necrophilia is part of being a [whatever group they are], and being a [group] is how they define themselves.
Of course, threatening people with death for disagreeing that it is healthy is usually NOT a defining trait in any of these groups. In fact, there is a word for groups that add that sort of thing to their collective sense of self: gangs.
That's cool, but that's irrelevant. You're not everyone.
He's more important than you are, you're still wet behind the ears. Look at his user id, he's probably been playing games since your parents were in diapers.
Oh, and protip: you're not everyone, either! He spoke for himself, and you can speak for yourself. And as somebody who spent the 80s playing "Moon Unit (cracked by the Nibbler)" on the Apple ][, I totally agree. In the old days game designers assumed gamers were nerds, and showed respect for our intelligence and basic decency. Now they accuse us of being disgusting, mindless brutes.
If game designers respected the male mind, I'd have games other than Civilization * to play. Luckily there is internet chess. Men are such brutes though, only half of them say "good game" after winning.;)
She doesn't say men are evil, she says that neckbeards are destroying the gaming experience for both men and women.
I'm a man, and I love my wife, therefore I wouldn't participate in any community that is full of misogynists. It is disgusting and games do not provide the level of benefit that would be required to get me to spend time in a culture that hates me and hates my family and hates me and my family for loving and respecting each other.
If you spend time reading your game "friends" saying these nasty things, you're a neckbeard, not a man.
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
Sorry, but it really is unreasonable to expect ALL people from credibly threatening the lives of others. After all, these are people we are talking about
It is reasonable to expect people not to commit murder. Knowing that humans are humans, we can only expect that some will be unreasonable, and do it anyways. It is then reasonable to expect them to face Justice. Knowing that humans are humans, we can only expect that some will escape Justice.
Reasonable expectations are what those with Reason are likely to do. It does not mean any sort of guarantee, or imply a believe in absolutes, or claim that all humans are or will be reasonable.
I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a "credible" vs. non-credible death threat. Specific details?
If it is phrased as a joke, then it is not credible. If it is an impossible scenario, then it is not credible. "If you don't shut up I'm going to send a bunch of Cardassians to your planet!" Or if they admit they don't know where you are, then it is not credible. "If I knew where you lived, you'd be toast!"
You can get the whole thing from the semantics of the words "credible" and "non-credible," by checking if it is non-credible. If it has something as mentioned above that makes it "non-credible," then it is not credible. If it doesn't contain only of those things, and is just a threat, without anything to discredit it, and it contains claims of having access to you, such as knowing your address, then it is clearly credible.
Note that "credible" doesn't say, "actually planned and they're at the door" or anything like that. If it is not non-credible, then it is credible; if they make it sound like they might really do it, then that is clearly and indisputably a "credible" threat. But if you can't tell, then it is credible as a threat.
Dictionary gives "able to be believed; convincing." And: "capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful." Synonyms are: believable, plausible, tenable, able to hold water, conceivable, likely, probable, possible, feasible, reasonable, with a ring of truth, persuasive
A threat such as, "I know where you live in Sometown, Somestate and I've been tracking your location and I'm gonna [felony] and [felony] you!" Clearly plausible as a threat; you'd have to know independently if they are or are not stalking you in order to determine it. But the claim itself is that they are stalking you, so the stalking part is plausible, and if they are stalking you, then the rest is even likely.
"You're so lame, if I met you I'd totally [felony] you." Not very plausible as an actual threat.
"R" that you're quoting is the Russian government propaganda rag. You can actually check them on real events in the world, and then check back in 6 months and see what was the truth. They're full of lies every time. I wouldn't trust them for a baseball score.
Check back in 6 months, compare what they reported on this conflict to what really happened. Because they were reporting the Ukrainian protests as being a bunch of Fascists who, if they had their way, would be building concentration camps for Russian speakers. Of course, the protesters won, got new elections, and turned out to be what they appeared to be; moderate youths who want increased relations with the EU.
Well, for the US an open conflict started by China in our bond market, that would naturally leave them frozen out of it. They enjoy buying our bonds, so they'd be cutting their own nose. And as the largest bond holder, they'd be destroying their own investments. Our continued bilateral economic friendliness is a basic requirement for China to get any return on those investments.
When they're the biggest bond holder, attacking the market would risk losing their investment, and for the US, our risk is that we would have to write off a bunch of debt. We'd come out ahead in the long term; they could trash our federal budget for a couple years, but most of the US economy is private and independent of the government.
Also, in the short term the dollar would drop, and China would have increased costs in keeping their currency pegged low against. Likely it would rise. That would lower the value of their giant pot of cash, which would be growing quickly without bond purchases. They would be stuck with shrinking liquid assets where they used to have an increasing investment portfolio.
So, no. The whole situation is an object lesson in not buying somebody's debt if you want them to be your enemy; you'll only be able to afford them as friends. China may not be our "best" friend, but their economic friendliness runs deep. Trillions of dollars deep.
We haven't, though. What country did we annex again? Oh, right. They all still have both political sovereignty, and also control of their legal borders. Iraq, not annexed. Grenada, not annexed. Vietnam, not annexed. Korea, not annexed. Germany, not annexed. Japan, not annexed. Panama, not annexed and we gave the canal back early. Italy, not annexed. Afghanistan, we wouldn't take it if they annexed themselves for us! Lebanon, not annexed. Libya, not annexed.
Russia doing this is the first time this has been done since the WWII-era. This is a major thing, and Russia has to lose; they have to give back the territory, or they will be economically isolated. They'll be like North Korea in 30 years unless they change course. What happens when the US and European domestic auto markets are all running electric, and Europe has enough wave and wind power to cover their winter heating? Russia's only "energy market" will be recycling their nukes to sell as fuel to France.
Russia and China just signed a big longterm gas and oil deal. Any amounts over that, in a scenario where Russia doesn't have other buyers, and China would be able to push the price down as far as they wanted; barely over cost.
Also, China is 9th in the world in natural gas production, and they don't use much; only 5% of their energy usage in 2012.
And they've been working hard to diversify their energy supply. They're not going to stop buying from the countries they just signed trade agreements with. Those are real victories much bigger than a short-term discount. They're also not going to convert factories to a new fuel source just to be supplied by Russia, because Russia is not an honest player; everybody knows, especially the Chinese, that they will raise your prices if you don't act like their puppet. China doesn't like being told what to do. At. All.
Slashdot Mirror
Allow me to paraphrase your argument.
1. Buying US Treasuries
2. *waves hands*
3. Nothing
I doubt that will prevent anybody from redeeming their mature US Treasury Bonds for... dollars.
To get from "buying US Treasury bonds" to "nothing" you have to claim that dollars are nothing. I can go to the supermarket and trade those dollars for beer. So, "ha!"
(And yes, trust in the repayment is part of the value. That is already factored into the price. Welcome to middle school economics class. For extra credit, look up the credit ratings on US bonds.)
Politifact rates it as only "half true." http://www.politifact.com/pund...
Here is another Russian source that includes some relevant facts you left out, mainly the part about Ukraine having not actually done what you accuse because you excessively focus on a "vote" when there are more steps than a single vote for a law to be enacted, or repealed. The law wasn't repealed. http://en.ria.ru/world/2014030...
Reading your description, or the RT description, it would appear that the pro-EU groups in Ukraine supported the repeal. The fact is that the Parliament took an unpopular vote, that resulted in Ukrainian speakers in Kyiv protesting(!), and none of the major pro-EU politicians supported that vote. None of the pro-EU candidates in the recent elections supported repealing the 2012 law.
So while it is "half true" that they voted to repeal the law, it is not true as stated, and certainly not true in the claimed implication that the pro-EU Ukrainians are anti-Russian-speakers.
Here is an in-depth analysis. https://www.opendemocracy.net/...
Regardless of how you feel about the protests, there were free, fair, credible, and widely recognized elections after those events. Fail.
The current government of Ukraine is 100% legit by any standard. Russia engages in misdirection, which you follow quite a ways here, but they don't have any actual complaint about the most recent elections, nor have they brought any complaints to the UN Security Council.
If somebody threatens you and leaves it ambiguous, then that is a credible threat; it leaves you having to act as if it might happen, because you're left thinking it might happen.
There is actually a lot of really aware and sophisticated legal history of this stuff, because of organized crime taking such threats to the level of an art. "You don't want `something' to happen to your family, do you? Nobody wants anything bad to happen to their family. When little Billy goes to Famousname Elementary School every morning, you want him to know he is safe. When he takes his lunch break at 11:35am, you want to know he is safe." That is totally actionable as a threat, especially in the context of trying to coerce a behavior, like, "Big John doesn't like it when you write bad things about him in the paper. Then his mind is all full of bad things."
Interestingly, the same is true if you want to make a joke about yelling fire in a theater while actually in a theater; it is ill advised, and it is your responsibility to make sure that it is clearly a joke. (to a normal, reasonable person like the other real people in the theater) If it is ambiguous, and people are left to think, "wait, is there really a fire?!" then all it will take is one of them running for the door and you "yelled fire in a theater."
A similar thing with threats; if you tell the joke to somebody who is NOT the target of the threat, that is pretty safe. Even if they can't tell if you're joking. But if you want to tell the target of the threat the... threat... it is up to you to make it clear as a joke if it is indeed a joke.
The "you need better developers" fallacy is exactly that, a fallacy - it doesn't matter how good your developers are
It is widely understood to be true that Java has, as an actual, real-life thing in its "pros" column (and in its "cons" column) that it is easier to use by low quality, replaceable programmers. That is not an original claim, or something that is disputed by mainstream sources. That is true both for people who support Java, and those who are against it.
Here is a video interview with Larry Wall, one of the most respected (and qualified in linguistics) language designers, who says, "because it is sort-of considered an `industrial language,' and programmers are sort-of interchangeable parts, managers like it for that reason..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, Dilbert is an engineer who is good at math but too socially retarded to get a real job for a company that respects him. It is presumed that he was rejected by all the companies that are desirable to work for, and feels trapped.
He is the Sub-Genius.
You don't really have any citations for anything you said.
I didn't cite it because their blog posts, first blaming Ruby/Rails and a few months later, retracting that and explaining the problems, are some of the most popular blog posts in the history of Ruby, and a major milestone in the public discussion of these issues.
If you don't even know about it, you're too far outside the developer community for my comment to have been targeted at you. Sorry, I only worry about the nerds when I post. Everybody else can suck it. And if a nerd didn't know, they'd find a search engine, and ask, instead of whining at the internet to contain citations.
OO can't be to promote re-use, because it is just a type of structured programming, and all structured programming is promoting re-use very very heavily. That was never an advantage of OOP.
But what he's talking about is the other direction; the library should protect itself from bad clients, but the client shouldn't have to protect itself from bad libraries. The library should be able to encapsulate its own testing. That is true in any structured programming paradigm.
And specifically as to C++, that is perhaps why OOP using plain C is so much cleaner (in the best case where strict conventions and best practices are followed, such as glib/gdk/gtk)
No, you can choose to agree with the opinion, or not to.
Force requires an actual action. If you decide your only choices are to believe, or deny reality, it sounds like you already agree with the opinion, and have some cognitive dissonance because it conflicts with what you expected to believe. Notice how the other party isn't involved in any of that? Those actions are all your own.
That it is a story when it happens in the US proves that it is unusual, that it is an outlier.
You thought "news" was the stuff that is normal, and they ignore the unusual stuff?
Judging from your user id, a few decades before your great grandpappy was born.
And I did use a bunch of "magic words," like kill, cook alive, etc.
Also, I paralleled a hate crime and attempted to let the horror of it speak for itself; I made no attempt to explicitly declare the actions as deplorable.
I stand by my claim, though. There will be outliers, and you can find excessive responses to art, and ignoring real violence.
You didn't even address the main point, which was that you were spewing bigoted anti-Americanism based on an outlier that will exist in any populous nation, and accused us of being unique in having negative outliers.
You might need a citation for that. Where did I claim to be policing everyone, or to be your mommy?
Are you absolutely sure that being against his arrest requires you to misconstrue the actual events?
Is your reading comprehension truly so low that you couldn't read what I said and discover that I was advocating an in-school mental health response?
Do you claim I have no business discussing how schools in my own community should respond to situations? Who is the "busybody mom," again?
I clearly meant the largest holder that isn't... ourselves. In the context of trade wars and international relations, it should be assumed that the external parts are being discussed.
Loans to them don't matter, because the debt is mostly one-way, China buying US bonds. A tiny bit of debt in the other way can be subtracted off the top and ignored. Doesn't matter who it is to or the details, because it is a tiny, tiny bit.
Well, you know, of course it is human nature to feel a little temporary [whatever] when the critics talk.
But like another artist once said; the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
So they really "have no complaint" about the critics being, uhm, critical. The work either sucks, so who cares, or it is worth talking about, so critics talking about it provides just desserts.
You conflate having an opinion with "forcing" it on people.
1. You have an opinion ...
2.
3. violence!
Notice the whole claim of "violence" is predicated on the word "forcing," which in this case is a verb. Notice the complete lack of action though. So just from that we can see it is a false accusation; the only action taken was giving his own opinion. But you lie, and claim he took an action to "force" his opinion on you. But you're not forced to believe every opinion you hear; that is silly, and shows a misunderstanding even over the word opinion. Then you double down on the lie, by claiming the "force" not only exists, but was violent.
If you find depictions of hookers being abused and murdered, or the dead bodies of women posed seductively, as life-defining, you are not typical.
Getting arrested for making death threats is also not "typical," and I have no problem believing that these people hold both of these characteristics.
I agree with what you're saying, but I did want to point out that in the "Goth" and similar communities it is common for both men and women to role-play necrophilia, and they generally associate that with their whole personal and artistic sense of self; fake necrophilia is part of being a [whatever group they are], and being a [group] is how they define themselves.
Of course, threatening people with death for disagreeing that it is healthy is usually NOT a defining trait in any of these groups. In fact, there is a word for groups that add that sort of thing to their collective sense of self: gangs.
That's cool, but that's irrelevant. You're not everyone.
He's more important than you are, you're still wet behind the ears. Look at his user id, he's probably been playing games since your parents were in diapers.
Oh, and protip: you're not everyone, either! He spoke for himself, and you can speak for yourself. And as somebody who spent the 80s playing "Moon Unit (cracked by the Nibbler)" on the Apple ][, I totally agree. In the old days game designers assumed gamers were nerds, and showed respect for our intelligence and basic decency. Now they accuse us of being disgusting, mindless brutes.
If game designers respected the male mind, I'd have games other than Civilization * to play. Luckily there is internet chess. Men are such brutes though, only half of them say "good game" after winning. ;)
She doesn't say men are evil, she says that neckbeards are destroying the gaming experience for both men and women.
I'm a man, and I love my wife, therefore I wouldn't participate in any community that is full of misogynists. It is disgusting and games do not provide the level of benefit that would be required to get me to spend time in a culture that hates me and hates my family and hates me and my family for loving and respecting each other.
If you spend time reading your game "friends" saying these nasty things, you're a neckbeard, not a man.
It's reasonable to expect all people to refrain from credibly threatening the lives of others.
Sorry, but it really is unreasonable to expect ALL people from credibly threatening the lives of others. After all, these are people we are talking about
It is reasonable to expect people not to commit murder. Knowing that humans are humans, we can only expect that some will be unreasonable, and do it anyways. It is then reasonable to expect them to face Justice. Knowing that humans are humans, we can only expect that some will escape Justice.
Reasonable expectations are what those with Reason are likely to do. It does not mean any sort of guarantee, or imply a believe in absolutes, or claim that all humans are or will be reasonable.
I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a "credible" vs. non-credible death threat. Specific details?
If it is phrased as a joke, then it is not credible. If it is an impossible scenario, then it is not credible. "If you don't shut up I'm going to send a bunch of Cardassians to your planet!" Or if they admit they don't know where you are, then it is not credible. "If I knew where you lived, you'd be toast!"
You can get the whole thing from the semantics of the words "credible" and "non-credible," by checking if it is non-credible. If it has something as mentioned above that makes it "non-credible," then it is not credible. If it doesn't contain only of those things, and is just a threat, without anything to discredit it, and it contains claims of having access to you, such as knowing your address, then it is clearly credible.
Note that "credible" doesn't say, "actually planned and they're at the door" or anything like that. If it is not non-credible, then it is credible; if they make it sound like they might really do it, then that is clearly and indisputably a "credible" threat. But if you can't tell, then it is credible as a threat.
Dictionary gives "able to be believed; convincing." And: "capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful."
Synonyms are: believable, plausible, tenable, able to hold water, conceivable, likely, probable, possible, feasible, reasonable, with a ring of truth, persuasive
A threat such as, "I know where you live in Sometown, Somestate and I've been tracking your location and I'm gonna [felony] and [felony] you!" Clearly plausible as a threat; you'd have to know independently if they are or are not stalking you in order to determine it. But the claim itself is that they are stalking you, so the stalking part is plausible, and if they are stalking you, then the rest is even likely.
"You're so lame, if I met you I'd totally [felony] you." Not very plausible as an actual threat.
Sorry, Mr. Russian Apologist, but they would only be "in Kiev in a few days" if that is their marching orders.
If their plan is to annex the east now, and the rest next year, then no, the story will be true today, and not where you claim in "a few days."
"R" that you're quoting is the Russian government propaganda rag. You can actually check them on real events in the world, and then check back in 6 months and see what was the truth. They're full of lies every time. I wouldn't trust them for a baseball score.
Check back in 6 months, compare what they reported on this conflict to what really happened. Because they were reporting the Ukrainian protests as being a bunch of Fascists who, if they had their way, would be building concentration camps for Russian speakers. Of course, the protesters won, got new elections, and turned out to be what they appeared to be; moderate youths who want increased relations with the EU.
Well, for the US an open conflict started by China in our bond market, that would naturally leave them frozen out of it. They enjoy buying our bonds, so they'd be cutting their own nose. And as the largest bond holder, they'd be destroying their own investments. Our continued bilateral economic friendliness is a basic requirement for China to get any return on those investments.
When they're the biggest bond holder, attacking the market would risk losing their investment, and for the US, our risk is that we would have to write off a bunch of debt. We'd come out ahead in the long term; they could trash our federal budget for a couple years, but most of the US economy is private and independent of the government.
Also, in the short term the dollar would drop, and China would have increased costs in keeping their currency pegged low against. Likely it would rise. That would lower the value of their giant pot of cash, which would be growing quickly without bond purchases. They would be stuck with shrinking liquid assets where they used to have an increasing investment portfolio.
So, no. The whole situation is an object lesson in not buying somebody's debt if you want them to be your enemy; you'll only be able to afford them as friends. China may not be our "best" friend, but their economic friendliness runs deep. Trillions of dollars deep.
We haven't, though. What country did we annex again? Oh, right. They all still have both political sovereignty, and also control of their legal borders. Iraq, not annexed. Grenada, not annexed. Vietnam, not annexed. Korea, not annexed. Germany, not annexed. Japan, not annexed. Panama, not annexed and we gave the canal back early. Italy, not annexed. Afghanistan, we wouldn't take it if they annexed themselves for us! Lebanon, not annexed. Libya, not annexed.
Russia doing this is the first time this has been done since the WWII-era. This is a major thing, and Russia has to lose; they have to give back the territory, or they will be economically isolated. They'll be like North Korea in 30 years unless they change course. What happens when the US and European domestic auto markets are all running electric, and Europe has enough wave and wind power to cover their winter heating? Russia's only "energy market" will be recycling their nukes to sell as fuel to France.
Russia and China just signed a big longterm gas and oil deal. Any amounts over that, in a scenario where Russia doesn't have other buyers, and China would be able to push the price down as far as they wanted; barely over cost.
Also, China is 9th in the world in natural gas production, and they don't use much; only 5% of their energy usage in 2012.
And they've been working hard to diversify their energy supply. They're not going to stop buying from the countries they just signed trade agreements with. Those are real victories much bigger than a short-term discount. They're also not going to convert factories to a new fuel source just to be supplied by Russia, because Russia is not an honest player; everybody knows, especially the Chinese, that they will raise your prices if you don't act like their puppet. China doesn't like being told what to do. At. All.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...