PLA Colonel Shuns US Attempts To Build Mini-NATO in Asia-Pacific

Source: SMH
A Chinese military officer has warned Australia not to side with the United States and Japan if war breaks out in the East China Sea. America is the global tiger and Japan is Asia’s wolf, and both are now madly biting China.
Senior Colonel Liu Mingfu said the US and Japan had provoked the ire of the Chinese people for “violating the security, peace and stability of the Asia Pacific”.

Colonel Liu Mingfu asked that his views be conveyed directly to Julia Gillard.

China was a peace-abiding nation but would fight “to the death” if sufficiently provoked, he said.
Colonel Liu’s warning raises the nightmare possibility of Australia having to choose between its dominant economic and security partners as a territorial contest between Japan and China over the Senkaku Islands, also known as the Diaoyu Islands, continues to escalate.
China, Japan and Japan’s defence ally, the United States, have trading military and diplomatic warnings over the disputed islands, while China has placed the People’s Liberation Army on combat alert.
“America is the global tiger and Japan is Asia’s wolf, and both are now madly biting China,” Colonel Liu said.
“Of all the animals, Chinese people hate the wolf the most. Australia should never play the jackal for the tiger or dance with the wolf.”
China and Japan are Australia’s dominant export markets and the US is Australia’s defence treaty partner. Colonel Liu asked that his message be conveyed directly to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, as she prepares to deliver a major speech on national security.
Like previous prime ministers, she has consistently maintained that Australia will not have to choose between its economic and security interests.
Colonel Liu likened Australia to a “kind-hearted lamb” that China would discourage from being led astray.
He has taught at the PLA’s National Defence University but said he was speaking in his personal capacity. His views do not represent Chinese government policy, but he said they were consistent with what mainstream Chinese political and military leaders think, if not what they say.
Colonel Liu is one in a group of outspoken hawkish PLA officers, who do not claim to speak on behalf of the leadership, but are given a conditional licence to speak stridently on some issues at some times.
Foreign diplomats say the ambiguity of their status can serve a useful purpose by conveying unofficial warnings and testing foreign and domestic reactions.
But they say hawkish commentators can potentially influence China’s internal political contests and place pressure on leaders to demonstrate their nationalistic credentials.
Colonel Liu, with other military figures, has been buoyed by the arrival of the Communist Party and PLA boss, Xi Jinping.
One of Mr Xi’s new political mottoes, the “China Dream”, echoes the title of a best-selling book by Colonel Liu, which has had sales restrictions removed since Mr Xi’s arrival.
Colonel Liu said “the China Dream”, as articulated in his book and by Mr Xi, would be realised when China surpassed the US to be the world’s “No.1″.
Colonel Liu’s new book, Why the People’s Liberation Army Can Win, has also reached best-seller lists. He is working on another about the future of China-US relations.
Colonel Liu said Australia needed to recognise that the US was reaching the dying days of its global dominance.
“American hegemony is not at its dawn and not at its zenith,” he said. It is at its sunset and night is coming.”

Researchers find certain kind of brain damage can cause people to be more reckless with investments BLA-damaged subjects in the trust game transferred significantly more money to the anonymous trustees than control subjects. Credit: (c) PNAS, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1217316110 (Medical Xpress)—A team of researchers from several universities in Europe has found that human test subjects with a damaged portion of their brain were likely to invest more money in a risky trustee than those without the brain damage. In their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team says the subjects were willing to invest more despite being told that the trustee may not be trustworthy.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-kind-brain-people-reckless-investments.html#jCp

Researchers find certain kind of brain damage can cause people to be more reckless with investments BLA-damaged subjects in the trust game transferred significantly more money to the anonymous trustees than control subjects. Credit: (c) PNAS, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1217316110 (Medical Xpress)—A team of researchers from several universities in Europe has found that human test subjects with a damaged portion of their brain were likely to invest more money in a risky trustee than those without the brain damage. In their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team says the subjects were willing to invest more despite being told that the trustee may not be trustworthy. Ads by Google Agoda's Best Hotel Offers - Save up to 75% Instant confirmation Check rates! - Agoda.com/Hotels In their study, the researchers found that test subjects with damage to the part of their brain known as the basolateral amygdale, but who still had a normally functioning central-medial amygdale, tended to be far more generous in a role-playing game – individuals were asked to offer funds to a trustee who was supposed to invest the funds for them – than those without such brain damage. More surprising was that the test subjects continued to do so despite being made aware of the possibility that the trustee might abscond with their money. When asked why, the test subjects were unable to offer an explanation. Interestingly, there did appear to be a limit however – test subjects were willing to risk up to twice as much money as their non-brain damaged peers, but no more than that. The researchers suggest that their findings do not indicate a change in risk-taking due to the brain damage, or that the test subjects expected a higher than average return on their investment. Instead, they suggest, it's more likely that the brain damage resulted in problems with comprehending risk assessment. Prior research they say, with mice, has shown that damage to the amygdale resulted in rodents that appeared unable to assess the tradeoff between risk taking and the reward that might come about as a result of engaging in a risky venture. If further study adds credence to these new findings, it could have implications for investors and people with brain damage. Someone with minor damage to their amygdale (from playing football perhaps) could be living an otherwise normal life, for example, but make poor choices regarding investing, or even buying a house. If the brain damage is subsequently discovered, there would likely be legal implications that could result in changes to how such cases are decided. More information: "Generous economic investments after basolateral amygdala damage," by Jack van Honk, Christoph Eisenegger, David Terburg, Dan J. Stein, and Barak Morgan, PNAS, 2013. www.pnas.org/cgi/d… s.1217316110 Abstract Contemporary economic models hold that instrumental and impulsive behaviors underlie human social decision making. The amygdala is assumed to be involved in social-economic behavior, but its role in human behavior is poorly understood. Rodent research suggests that the basolateral amygdala (BLA) subserves instrumental behaviors and regulates the central-medial amygdala, which subserves impulsive behaviors. The human amygdala, however, typically is investigated as a single unit. If these rodent data could be translated to humans, selective dysfunction of the human BLA might constrain instrumental social-economic decisions and result in more impulsive social-economic choice behavior. Here we show that humans with selective BLA damage and a functional central-medial amygdala invest nearly 100% more money in unfamiliar others in a trust game than do healthy controls. We furthermore show that this generosity is not caused by risk-taking deviations in nonsocial contexts. Moreover, these BLA-damaged subjects do not expect higher returns or perceive people as more trustworthy, implying that their generous investments are not instrumental in nature. These findings suggest that the human BLA is essential for instrumental behaviors in socialeconomic interactions. Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences search and more info website © 2013 Medical Xpress

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-kind-brain-people-reckless-investments.html#jCp

Researchers find certain kind of brain damage can cause people to be more reckless with investments BLA-damaged subjects in the trust game transferred significantly more money to the anonymous trustees than control subjects. Credit: (c) PNAS, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1217316110 (Medical Xpress)—A team of researchers from several universities in Europe has found that human test subjects with a damaged portion of their brain were likely to invest more money in a risky trustee than those without the brain damage. In their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team says the subjects were willing to invest more despite being told that the trustee may not be trustworthy. Ads by Google Agoda's Best Hotel Offers - Save up to 75% Instant confirmation Check rates! - Agoda.com/Hotels In their study, the researchers found that test subjects with damage to the part of their brain known as the basolateral amygdale, but who still had a normally functioning central-medial amygdale, tended to be far more generous in a role-playing game – individuals were asked to offer funds to a trustee who was supposed to invest the funds for them – than those without such brain damage. More surprising was that the test subjects continued to do so despite being made aware of the possibility that the trustee might abscond with their money. When asked why, the test subjects were unable to offer an explanation. Interestingly, there did appear to be a limit however – test subjects were willing to risk up to twice as much money as their non-brain damaged peers, but no more than that. The researchers suggest that their findings do not indicate a change in risk-taking due to the brain damage, or that the test subjects expected a higher than average return on their investment. Instead, they suggest, it's more likely that the brain damage resulted in problems with comprehending risk assessment. Prior research they say, with mice, has shown that damage to the amygdale resulted in rodents that appeared unable to assess the tradeoff between risk taking and the reward that might come about as a result of engaging in a risky venture. If further study adds credence to these new findings, it could have implications for investors and people with brain damage. Someone with minor damage to their amygdale (from playing football perhaps) could be living an otherwise normal life, for example, but make poor choices regarding investing, or even buying a house. If the brain damage is subsequently discovered, there would likely be legal implications that could result in changes to how such cases are decided. More information: "Generous economic investments after basolateral amygdala damage," by Jack van Honk, Christoph Eisenegger, David Terburg, Dan J. Stein, and Barak Morgan, PNAS, 2013. www.pnas.org/cgi/d… s.1217316110 Abstract Contemporary economic models hold that instrumental and impulsive behaviors underlie human social decision making. The amygdala is assumed to be involved in social-economic behavior, but its role in human behavior is poorly understood. Rodent research suggests that the basolateral amygdala (BLA) subserves instrumental behaviors and regulates the central-medial amygdala, which subserves impulsive behaviors. The human amygdala, however, typically is investigated as a single unit. If these rodent data could be translated to humans, selective dysfunction of the human BLA might constrain instrumental social-economic decisions and result in more impulsive social-economic choice behavior. Here we show that humans with selective BLA damage and a functional central-medial amygdala invest nearly 100% more money in unfamiliar others in a trust game than do healthy controls. We furthermore show that this generosity is not caused by risk-taking deviations in nonsocial contexts. Moreover, these BLA-damaged subjects do not expect higher returns or perceive people as more trustworthy, implying that their generous investments are not instrumental in nature. These findings suggest that the human BLA is essential for instrumental behaviors in socialeconomic interactions. Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences search and more info website © 2013 Medical Xpress

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-kind-brain-people-reckless-investments.html#jCp

Researchers find certain kind of brain damage can cause people to be more reckless with investments BLA-damaged subjects in the trust game transferred significantly more money to the anonymous trustees than control subjects. Credit: (c) PNAS, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1217316110 (Medical Xpress)—A team of researchers from several universities in Europe has found that human test subjects with a damaged portion of their brain were likely to invest more money in a risky trustee than those without the brain damage. In their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team says the subjects were willing to invest more despite being told that the trustee may not be trustworthy. Ads by Google Agoda's Best Hotel Offers - Save up to 75% Instant confirmation Check rates! - Agoda.com/Hotels In their study, the researchers found that test subjects with damage to the part of their brain known as the basolateral amygdale, but who still had a normally functioning central-medial amygdale, tended to be far more generous in a role-playing game – individuals were asked to offer funds to a trustee who was supposed to invest the funds for them – than those without such brain damage. More surprising was that the test subjects continued to do so despite being made aware of the possibility that the trustee might abscond with their money. When asked why, the test subjects were unable to offer an explanation. Interestingly, there did appear to be a limit however – test subjects were willing to risk up to twice as much money as their non-brain damaged peers, but no more than that. The researchers suggest that their findings do not indicate a change in risk-taking due to the brain damage, or that the test subjects expected a higher than average return on their investment. Instead, they suggest, it's more likely that the brain damage resulted in problems with comprehending risk assessment. Prior research they say, with mice, has shown that damage to the amygdale resulted in rodents that appeared unable to assess the tradeoff between risk taking and the reward that might come about as a result of engaging in a risky venture. If further study adds credence to these new findings, it could have implications for investors and people with brain damage. Someone with minor damage to their amygdale (from playing football perhaps) could be living an otherwise normal life, for example, but make poor choices regarding investing, or even buying a house. If the brain damage is subsequently discovered, there would likely be legal implications that could result in changes to how such cases are decided. More information: "Generous economic investments after basolateral amygdala damage," by Jack van Honk, Christoph Eisenegger, David Terburg, Dan J. Stein, and Barak Morgan, PNAS, 2013. www.pnas.org/cgi/d… s.1217316110 Abstract Contemporary economic models hold that instrumental and impulsive behaviors underlie human social decision making. The amygdala is assumed to be involved in social-economic behavior, but its role in human behavior is poorly understood. Rodent research suggests that the basolateral amygdala (BLA) subserves instrumental behaviors and regulates the central-medial amygdala, which subserves impulsive behaviors. The human amygdala, however, typically is investigated as a single unit. If these rodent data could be translated to humans, selective dysfunction of the human BLA might constrain instrumental social-economic decisions and result in more impulsive social-economic choice behavior. Here we show that humans with selective BLA damage and a functional central-medial amygdala invest nearly 100% more money in unfamiliar others in a trust game than do healthy controls. We furthermore show that this generosity is not caused by risk-taking deviations in nonsocial contexts. Moreover, these BLA-damaged subjects do not expect higher returns or perceive people as more trustworthy, implying that their generous investments are not instrumental in nature. These findings suggest that the human BLA is essential for instrumental behaviors in socialeconomic interactions. Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences search and more info website © 2013 Medical Xpress

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-kind-brain-people-reckless-investments.html#jCp

Researchers find certain kind of brain damage can cause people to be more reckless with investments BLA-damaged subjects in the trust game transferred significantly more money to the anonymous trustees than control subjects. Credit: (c) PNAS, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1217316110 (Medical Xpress)—A team of researchers from several universities in Europe has found that human test subjects with a damaged portion of their brain were likely to invest more money in a risky trustee than those without the brain damage. In their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team says the subjects were willing to invest more despite being told that the trustee may not be trustworthy.

Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-01-kind-brain-people-reckless-investments.html#jCp