J
jmackenzie_15
Guest
But you do have time to call people wingnuts and then act as if you cant be bothered.Hilarious.
Russia and China To Hold Joint Military Exercises
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,555
- Points
- 1,160
A point of view is one thing. Your constant US bashing in almost every post, and context, is what's gotten stale. We know how you feel, no need to beat us over the head with it everytime you switch on your computer. You lose credibility and we stop reading your posts. Shame, we've probably missed some good stuff from you I'll bet.
- Reaction score
- 12,686
- Points
- 1,260
jmackenzie_15 said:
In relative or absolute terms?
Did you ever stop to consider that America can afford its defence budget because it is underwritten by a system that ensures that most of its citizens have an acceptable standard of living?
Don't mistake absolute numbers with quality (or an ability to sustain it).
If you'd bother to look, you'll see that many aspects of China's economy are mythical. Party nepotism has ensured that vertical political links supplant stronger horizontal economic ones. Combined with the fact that a good percentage of the key industries in China are wholly owned foreign assets, it gets hard to believe that China's economy is a unbeatable leviathan that could stand "rocking" the international boat. See the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs for more.
Generalizations. Tiananmen seems to refute your theory of a cultural (and thus political) monolith.
Iraq has been a civilized society for over 4,000 years and look at how it's doing.
...and the countries of the West aren't?
Again, some pretty broad generalizations that don't really seem to be backed up by facts.
This statement represents a clear lack of understanding the fact that:
A) Taxes collected from peasent farmers can't support armoured divisions while those of white-collar investment bankers can.
B) There us an increasing complexity of supporting Information Age forces (it will not be a matter of lurching over the Yalu again).
C) There is an entire array of sub-state groups that are opposed to the Central Party. From religious groups to Western peoples who don't like to be tagged as "Chinese" to young democrats to capitalists in Hong Kong to that little thing called Taiwan. The government may have much more leeway in what it can get away with, but I'd hardly suggest that it can do whatever it wants. The only thing harder then governing one billion people is pacifying half a billion dissendents
IMO, in reality, the united states would NOT defeat China in war, for the main reason that, the strength and unity of their society far outdoes ours or the americans.The americans have sufferred 1500 dead and 7000 wounded in iraq, and alot of the country wants them to pull out.Thats without seeing the bodies coming home on tv, since thats kindof a downer.
Considering the fact that the PLA is largely an industrial-age force and is focused upon territorial defence while air and naval forces are relatively minor, backed by the fact that China is saddled with a polyglot society that is disgruntled with the Central Party at the best of times, I think your baseless assessment of the geopolitical situation has no merit. Better try harder to convince us next time, Kissinger.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
Good points, Infanteer, and I also question some of jmackenzie's assertions, but I wonder that perhaps an "evil synergy" of some kind might not be worked out between Russia and China, that could with time offset some of the weaknesses we currently identify in both. The raw potential exists, and there is certainly no shortage of intellectual power or scientific tradition in either country. This may not occur overnight (OK-well.....it won't...) but I do not see it as so far fetched. Even less incredible than a world-dominating Chinese axis of power would be a real and potentially dangerous regional challenge mounted by the two states against the US. Cheers
- Reaction score
- 8,350
- Points
- 1,360
I'm back, thank you Infanteer.
Now I don't want to hijack this thread but little "J" there touched a nerve with his baseless, useless ranting.
Quote,
how much do you think they would do for us if we werent their biggest trading partner.The American government is about making money and imperialsm and militarization.If we suddenly became a poor, resourcless third world nation overnight, do you think they would help us out just cause we're 'friends' ? Not a chance.
Lets see, as I recall from the CBC news on the way in the US is sending 15 million dollars right now for the tsunia victims and promising to help in anyway possible when the need is determined.Good thing none of those countries affected are oops,.....poor, resourcless third world nations. :
Now I don't want to hijack this thread but little "J" there touched a nerve with his baseless, useless ranting.
Quote,
how much do you think they would do for us if we werent their biggest trading partner.The American government is about making money and imperialsm and militarization.If we suddenly became a poor, resourcless third world nation overnight, do you think they would help us out just cause we're 'friends' ? Not a chance.
Lets see, as I recall from the CBC news on the way in the US is sending 15 million dollars right now for the tsunia victims and promising to help in anyway possible when the need is determined.Good thing none of those countries affected are oops,.....poor, resourcless third world nations. :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
LOL!!!...
And I quote from Saving Private Ryan: "Careful you don't step in the bullsh*t!"....
That is directed at the whole conversation really.
Very good point indeed. Although many "lefties" and "bleeding heart softies" would be quick to say that the USA is doing such because it's an easy way for them to gain international recognition/merits against all the anti-americanism across the globe at the moment.
???
On the other hand, the USA knows what it's like to loose MANY of thier own (gee, 9/11 anyone?) so I myself believe they have experienced the horror themselves and know they have the ability to give a decent helping hand and want to. Everyone in the world also knows this is tragic and a huge loss of human life. Any nation whose leaders have an ounce of humanity would do what they could to help out...
Just pointing out views.
If China and Russia eventually teamed up against the USA, it would be a deadly engagement regardless for both sides. There was a thread on N.Korea where everyone except 1 guy thought it'd be a blood-bath+Vietnam all over again if they went to war with N.Korea. But the 1 guy had some very good points about the quality of Kim's (N.Korea) soldiers. Also how long they'd last before supply lines were cutoff and they were starved. Moral dries up pretty quick with no food or bullets in a war. I think this training excercise can be viewed as a "warming up" of relations between the two Nations, or at least thier attempt at comming close together. Simply that. Co-operation.
And I quote from Saving Private Ryan: "Careful you don't step in the bullsh*t!"....
That is directed at the whole conversation really.
Very good point indeed. Although many "lefties" and "bleeding heart softies" would be quick to say that the USA is doing such because it's an easy way for them to gain international recognition/merits against all the anti-americanism across the globe at the moment.
???
On the other hand, the USA knows what it's like to loose MANY of thier own (gee, 9/11 anyone?) so I myself believe they have experienced the horror themselves and know they have the ability to give a decent helping hand and want to. Everyone in the world also knows this is tragic and a huge loss of human life. Any nation whose leaders have an ounce of humanity would do what they could to help out...
Just pointing out views.
If China and Russia eventually teamed up against the USA, it would be a deadly engagement regardless for both sides. There was a thread on N.Korea where everyone except 1 guy thought it'd be a blood-bath+Vietnam all over again if they went to war with N.Korea. But the 1 guy had some very good points about the quality of Kim's (N.Korea) soldiers. Also how long they'd last before supply lines were cutoff and they were starved. Moral dries up pretty quick with no food or bullets in a war. I think this training excercise can be viewed as a "warming up" of relations between the two Nations, or at least thier attempt at comming close together. Simply that. Co-operation.
- Reaction score
- 12,686
- Points
- 1,260
pbi said:
That would lead to a stranglehold on Mackinder's geopolitical "Heartland", seeing the replacement of Eastern Europe with a Siberia/China. Wierder things have been known to happen - that's why politics is so fun:
"A victorious Roman general, when he entered the city, amid all the head-turning splendor of a `Triumph,' had behind him on the chariot a slave who whispered into his ear that he was mortal. When our statesmen are in conversation with the defeated enemy, some airy cherub should whisper to them from time to time this saying: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World."
Sir Halford Mackinder, 1919
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
Events after WW2 placed the west, Russia, and China on different paths
but they achieved a stable undertanding that is maintained to this day.
Going into the 21st century, politics follows economics and it would be in
no ones' interest to push the envelop of war or extended conflict. Putin
and Hu Jintao want to pull their respective countries out of the
economic dregs. Conflict with the US or the US and the EU would
counteract any economic benefit and lead to destabilization.
As what the US has done, what the EU is doing, Russia and China
want to engage the US, reap economic benefits, and feel themelves
as equals. Yet, the US has maintains a superior economy,
communication systems, and an advanced military able to project
power anywhere. Since Russia and China lack the economic and
technological edge, they will attempt to manipulate the US to
their own end and the US will act to manipulate the world to
their end and thats how the game is played.
As what befell Europe, things change, the French and British
Empire degraded, the Ottomans left a legacy, as did Rome
and everything before them. Today, China is developing
rapidly and affecting its neigbhors. Russia is feeling the pain
of economic reform and a centre of future European
energy supply. The US is watching various events and trying to
figure out how to manage regions of the world in order keep
its dominant edge.
but they achieved a stable undertanding that is maintained to this day.
Going into the 21st century, politics follows economics and it would be in
no ones' interest to push the envelop of war or extended conflict. Putin
and Hu Jintao want to pull their respective countries out of the
economic dregs. Conflict with the US or the US and the EU would
counteract any economic benefit and lead to destabilization.
As what the US has done, what the EU is doing, Russia and China
want to engage the US, reap economic benefits, and feel themelves
as equals. Yet, the US has maintains a superior economy,
communication systems, and an advanced military able to project
power anywhere. Since Russia and China lack the economic and
technological edge, they will attempt to manipulate the US to
their own end and the US will act to manipulate the world to
their end and thats how the game is played.
As what befell Europe, things change, the French and British
Empire degraded, the Ottomans left a legacy, as did Rome
and everything before them. Today, China is developing
rapidly and affecting its neigbhors. Russia is feeling the pain
of economic reform and a centre of future European
energy supply. The US is watching various events and trying to
figure out how to manage regions of the world in order keep
its dominant edge.
- Reaction score
- 6,316
- Points
- 1,260
The potential for yet another European realignment cannot be ignored: France, once again, looks East to offset the power of perfidious Albion and her horrid step-child, the USA in the hands of Texas neo-cons.
France may, yet again, find common cause with Russia but not, I think, with China.
For the moment â “ and I must emphasize it is just a moment and may pass unnoticed â “ Russia and China seem to be moving in opposite directions. Russia is drifting, under Putin, back towards comfortable (some would say natural) authoritarianism while China is experimenting with economic and social (but not political) classic (19th century English) liberalism.
(As an aside, and representing a personal view, I see the last 50 years as a continuance of the Qing dynasty, but this time with the Han in firm control. I think Mao, but, especially, Zhou Enlai, wanted to re-establish what they saw as a comfortable or natural system of government for China â “ a self sustaining oligarchy supported by a new, improved mandarinate. The Party may have been communistic in the '30s, '40s and even '50s but, despite a few spasms â “ including the Cultural Revolution, it has reverted to imperial type, except that the mandate now comes (and is renewed and revised) from inside the Party rather than from heaven (the ancestors, in reality).)
China has been preoccupied with China since 1433. I can see no reason to expect any change in that aspect of China's social history. For many Chinese the physical world is, still, divided into two parts: China and the barbarians. The Chinese may want what the barbarians have (some of them believe they are entitled to what the barbarians have â “ as a natural (divinely ordained) right) but, at the all important social level they, like 19th century Canadian Tories, want â ?no truck or tradeâ ? with the foreign devils. Some Chinese believe that everything that ever was Chinese is, now and always, Chinese. (Well, they want the trade and the money, but they want minimal 'contact' and no interference â “ as defined by the Chinese, themselves.)
(It is possible to have a calm discussion with a well educated, thoroughly Westernized Chinese on the topic: Do the Mongol conquests, before the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368) 'count' as Chinese? If the answer is â Å“yes,â ? then the Western edge of China's legitimate territories is near Budapest â “ where Subedei ended up. Of course the conversation ends in good natured chuckles but it is, usually, picked up again with a somewhat different, more serious question: Did not the Russians, under Nevsky (a real person, by the way) concede sovereignty of everything East of the Urals to the Monglos? The answer appears to be that Nevsky 'saw' Russia as a strip of land stretching from the Crimea to the Gulf of Finland. His father had, formally, submitted, to the Mongols and he, Alexander Nevsky (from his base in Ukraine), supported the Mongols when his younger brother (Andrew, in Vladimir) rose against the Mongols. Alexander Nevsky allowed the Mongols to conduct a census and collect taxes in Russia and he governed, essentially, as a vassal â “ concerned, primarily, with his Western enemies, not his Mongol overlords. That being the case, says the educated, Westernized Chinese person: â Å“Didn't Mongol sovereignty extend into the Yuan and, therefore, become Chinese sovereignty over all of Siberia?â ? If yes, then China still has a legitimate claim over all of Siberia; Europe ends at the Urals, from then on it is Asia and Asia 'belongs' to China. Russia be damned, along with its ambitions.)
I think the Chinese are mischief making while America is preoccupied with a sideshow in the Middle East. I am appalled at the dearth of comment on the just released Chinese White Paper on Defence, which is quite provocative. (See: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/whitepaper/defense2004/defense2004.html ). With a respect to those who are embroiled in Iraq, etc, this is a big deal, the main event. After noting that East Asia is, essentially, stable, the White Paper says:
Under the heading â Å“IX. International Security Cooperationâ ? the White paper goes on to say:
I personally, think China-Pakistan is a more worrisome alliance than China-Russia because it threatens the independence (such as it is) of the Central Asian 'stans' â “ another of the many worries for the Russians.
American and Western foreign policies need to get the world back into long range focus; when that is done it is clear that the current unipolar interregnum will end sometime in the first half of the 21st century â “ say 2025, just for the sake of argument* â “ and China will take its place as the dominant Asian power, fully supplanting the USA, and as a global superpower in its own right. China's strength will be exaggerated by the precipitous real decline in European and Japanese power and the consequential apparent decline in American power. I have written elsewhere (DFAIT) that:
There is no good reason for China and the West to fight a war in Asia any time within the next half century, maybe more. China should be, can be contained; just a Kennan correctly advocated, in 1947, the containment of Russia and a restoration of a useful balance of power. (See: http://www.cfr.org/about/grosse06.php and http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html ).
While I see China as our (the American led West) most important competitor for the next century, I do not see a temporary Sino-Russian military rapprochement as anything other than an expedient measure aimed, primarily, at discomfiting the USA in the immediate term. China plans to benefit â “ the Chinese government is not a charitable institution and it pursues and protects its own vital interests with skill and diligence â “ but it has bigger fish to fry.
----------
* 20 years is 'shorter' now than it was when Germany moved from ruin to modern, potent industrial state in 1945-1965. China is 'starting' from a good position and will [i[develop[/i] very, very quickly.
France may, yet again, find common cause with Russia but not, I think, with China.
For the moment â “ and I must emphasize it is just a moment and may pass unnoticed â “ Russia and China seem to be moving in opposite directions. Russia is drifting, under Putin, back towards comfortable (some would say natural) authoritarianism while China is experimenting with economic and social (but not political) classic (19th century English) liberalism.
(As an aside, and representing a personal view, I see the last 50 years as a continuance of the Qing dynasty, but this time with the Han in firm control. I think Mao, but, especially, Zhou Enlai, wanted to re-establish what they saw as a comfortable or natural system of government for China â “ a self sustaining oligarchy supported by a new, improved mandarinate. The Party may have been communistic in the '30s, '40s and even '50s but, despite a few spasms â “ including the Cultural Revolution, it has reverted to imperial type, except that the mandate now comes (and is renewed and revised) from inside the Party rather than from heaven (the ancestors, in reality).)
China has been preoccupied with China since 1433. I can see no reason to expect any change in that aspect of China's social history. For many Chinese the physical world is, still, divided into two parts: China and the barbarians. The Chinese may want what the barbarians have (some of them believe they are entitled to what the barbarians have â “ as a natural (divinely ordained) right) but, at the all important social level they, like 19th century Canadian Tories, want â ?no truck or tradeâ ? with the foreign devils. Some Chinese believe that everything that ever was Chinese is, now and always, Chinese. (Well, they want the trade and the money, but they want minimal 'contact' and no interference â “ as defined by the Chinese, themselves.)
(It is possible to have a calm discussion with a well educated, thoroughly Westernized Chinese on the topic: Do the Mongol conquests, before the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368) 'count' as Chinese? If the answer is â Å“yes,â ? then the Western edge of China's legitimate territories is near Budapest â “ where Subedei ended up. Of course the conversation ends in good natured chuckles but it is, usually, picked up again with a somewhat different, more serious question: Did not the Russians, under Nevsky (a real person, by the way) concede sovereignty of everything East of the Urals to the Monglos? The answer appears to be that Nevsky 'saw' Russia as a strip of land stretching from the Crimea to the Gulf of Finland. His father had, formally, submitted, to the Mongols and he, Alexander Nevsky (from his base in Ukraine), supported the Mongols when his younger brother (Andrew, in Vladimir) rose against the Mongols. Alexander Nevsky allowed the Mongols to conduct a census and collect taxes in Russia and he governed, essentially, as a vassal â “ concerned, primarily, with his Western enemies, not his Mongol overlords. That being the case, says the educated, Westernized Chinese person: â Å“Didn't Mongol sovereignty extend into the Yuan and, therefore, become Chinese sovereignty over all of Siberia?â ? If yes, then China still has a legitimate claim over all of Siberia; Europe ends at the Urals, from then on it is Asia and Asia 'belongs' to China. Russia be damned, along with its ambitions.)
I think the Chinese are mischief making while America is preoccupied with a sideshow in the Middle East. I am appalled at the dearth of comment on the just released Chinese White Paper on Defence, which is quite provocative. (See: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/whitepaper/defense2004/defense2004.html ). With a respect to those who are embroiled in Iraq, etc, this is a big deal, the main event. After noting that East Asia is, essentially, stable, the White Paper says:
Under the heading â Å“IX. International Security Cooperationâ ? the White paper goes on to say:
I personally, think China-Pakistan is a more worrisome alliance than China-Russia because it threatens the independence (such as it is) of the Central Asian 'stans' â “ another of the many worries for the Russians.
American and Western foreign policies need to get the world back into long range focus; when that is done it is clear that the current unipolar interregnum will end sometime in the first half of the 21st century â “ say 2025, just for the sake of argument* â “ and China will take its place as the dominant Asian power, fully supplanting the USA, and as a global superpower in its own right. China's strength will be exaggerated by the precipitous real decline in European and Japanese power and the consequential apparent decline in American power. I have written elsewhere (DFAIT) that:
There is no good reason for China and the West to fight a war in Asia any time within the next half century, maybe more. China should be, can be contained; just a Kennan correctly advocated, in 1947, the containment of Russia and a restoration of a useful balance of power. (See: http://www.cfr.org/about/grosse06.php and http://www.historyguide.org/europe/kennan.html ).
While I see China as our (the American led West) most important competitor for the next century, I do not see a temporary Sino-Russian military rapprochement as anything other than an expedient measure aimed, primarily, at discomfiting the USA in the immediate term. China plans to benefit â “ the Chinese government is not a charitable institution and it pursues and protects its own vital interests with skill and diligence â “ but it has bigger fish to fry.
----------
* 20 years is 'shorter' now than it was when Germany moved from ruin to modern, potent industrial state in 1945-1965. China is 'starting' from a good position and will [i[develop[/i] very, very quickly.
S
SHARP WO
Guest
I just want to point out a few inconsistancies that I have noticed from some of the posts on this subject.
Theyre communists and theyre govnernment could probobly whip up and conscript 100 million soldiers if they wanted to.The population of the country is 2 billion
While the Chinese government is communist, the rest of China is following the Western view of a capitalist nation.
Many companies are now owned by western nations is incorrect, in order to have a business in China, you need to have a Chinese business partner.
The last point is that the Chinese people do pay tax, around 15-20% and over a year for the 1.3 billion people, that is a lot of money.
Sharp WO
Theyre communists and theyre govnernment could probobly whip up and conscript 100 million soldiers if they wanted to.The population of the country is 2 billion
While the Chinese government is communist, the rest of China is following the Western view of a capitalist nation.
Many companies are now owned by western nations is incorrect, in order to have a business in China, you need to have a Chinese business partner.
The last point is that the Chinese people do pay tax, around 15-20% and over a year for the 1.3 billion people, that is a lot of money.
Sharp WO
- Reaction score
- 12,686
- Points
- 1,260
ROJ, interesting analysis. It'll take me a while to digest, but one point immediately jumped out:
Do you think a Kennan-esque policy of "Containment" is possible? Kennan predicated his entire proposal on the fact that "The Soviet Union contained the seeds of its own demise" (quoting from memory)- containment would work because we could sit back and watch the Soviet Union fall apart.
Do we have that strategic choice with China? A much more robust socio-economic system might make it untenable.
From the Customs General Administration of the People's Republic of China (2003):
Industrial Machinery Exports: $83 billion (of which 62% was by Wholly Owned Foreign Enterprise)
Computers, Components, and Peripherals Exports: $41 billion (75% by WOFE)
Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment Exports:: $89 billion (43% by WOFE)
The companies you refer to - Joint Ventures - compose the second largest chunk in all these stats to the point where strictly domestic industry, whether Private or State Owned, never composes more then 25% of the market of these major industrial and information age economic sectors.
These numbers are taken from George J Gilboy, The Myth Behind China's Miracle: Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug 2004; pg39.
The article points out that these difficulties are further exacerbated by the fact that the political landscape of the PRC makes essential, horizontal economic "nodes", which the liberal democratic order functions through, impossible. Instead, foreign companies keep the politicians happy and look away from China while the domestic industries focus all their energies into building "vertical nodes" with local party officials - ties which are useless in a globalized and competitive economy.
The implications are obvious - the Chinese economy is not some Monolith that can simply shrug off Western engagement in an effort to push a more aggressive foreign policy - much of what they run off of may just dry up if the situation become unstable. Those who point to the preponderance of the Chinese economic boogie-man need to pay attention to the finer points.
Sure, but is this tax-money used efficiently? I am not saying the Pentagon is the poster-boy for efficiency (far from it), but I'd venture that factors of the US economy and US society provides a much more robust and flexible Defence Industrial Base then China.
Rusty Old Joint said:
Do you think a Kennan-esque policy of "Containment" is possible? Kennan predicated his entire proposal on the fact that "The Soviet Union contained the seeds of its own demise" (quoting from memory)- containment would work because we could sit back and watch the Soviet Union fall apart.
Do we have that strategic choice with China? A much more robust socio-economic system might make it untenable.
SHARP WO said:
From the Customs General Administration of the People's Republic of China (2003):
Industrial Machinery Exports: $83 billion (of which 62% was by Wholly Owned Foreign Enterprise)
Computers, Components, and Peripherals Exports: $41 billion (75% by WOFE)
Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment Exports:: $89 billion (43% by WOFE)
The companies you refer to - Joint Ventures - compose the second largest chunk in all these stats to the point where strictly domestic industry, whether Private or State Owned, never composes more then 25% of the market of these major industrial and information age economic sectors.
These numbers are taken from George J Gilboy, The Myth Behind China's Miracle: Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug 2004; pg39.
The article points out that these difficulties are further exacerbated by the fact that the political landscape of the PRC makes essential, horizontal economic "nodes", which the liberal democratic order functions through, impossible. Instead, foreign companies keep the politicians happy and look away from China while the domestic industries focus all their energies into building "vertical nodes" with local party officials - ties which are useless in a globalized and competitive economy.
The implications are obvious - the Chinese economy is not some Monolith that can simply shrug off Western engagement in an effort to push a more aggressive foreign policy - much of what they run off of may just dry up if the situation become unstable. Those who point to the preponderance of the Chinese economic boogie-man need to pay attention to the finer points.
Sure, but is this tax-money used efficiently? I am not saying the Pentagon is the poster-boy for efficiency (far from it), but I'd venture that factors of the US economy and US society provides a much more robust and flexible Defence Industrial Base then China.
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 50
- Points
- 330
Rusty Old Joint said:
China-Pakistan is a more worrisome alliance in the opinion of India I would suggest too. Could therefore be considered a greater concern than the independence of the central Asian "stans" for us as well. I would be more concerned with a China-Pakistan-India conflict, than anything arising out of a China-Russia alliance.
Interesting reading Thomas P.M. Barnett, who claims that the Pentagon's search for a "near peer" competitor in China is purely wishful thinking by those who would like to go back to the days of big budget weapons acquisitions, and who would like to maintain the status quo within the US military. He argues that a globalized, connected and economically integrated China will not go to war with the US or the rest of the "West" for that matter.
The Taiwan issue is going to require some resolution, as the current stances, as expressed by China and the US, and dependent on the whim of Taiwan, are not really acceptable.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Yeah, actually I do, here is some facts, yes FACTS from the United States Navy Fact File:
General Characteristics
Primary Function: long-range subsonic cruise missile for striking high value or heavily defended land targets.
Contractor: Raytheon Systems Company, Tucson, Ariz.
Unit Cost: approximately $569,000 (FY99 $)
Power Plant:
Block II/III TLAM-A, C & D - Williams International F107 cruise turbo-fan engine ; ARC/CSD solid-fuel booster
Block IV TLAM-E - Williams International F415 cruise turbo-jet engine ; ARC solid-fuel booster
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Range:
Block II TLAM-A â “ 1350 nautical miles (1500 statute miles, 2500 km)
Block III TLAM-C - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Block III TLAM-D - 700 nautical miles (800 statute miles, 1250 km)
Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Guidance System:
Block II TLAM-A â “ INS, TERCOM
Block III TLAM-C, D & Block IV TLAM-E â “ INS, TERCOM, DSMAC, and GPS
Warheads: Block II TLAM-N â “ W80 nuclear warhead
Block III TLAM-C and Block IV TLAM-E - 1,000 pound class unitary warhead
Block III TLAM-D - conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets.
Date Deployed: Block II TLAM-A IOC - 1984
Block III â “ IOC 1994
Block IV â “ IOC expected 2004
So basically it's half a mil for your basic cruise missle. When they first came out they used to be about 1 million. Your point would be??? Munitions of any kind, especially advanced weapons platforms are very expensive and China has advanced weaponry now days also. Even a Pheonix long range air-to-air missle that the US uses on F-14 Tomcats cost about as much as a Rolls Royce or Mercedes Benz... And the jet can carry 4 at a time!!!
:
In other words, regardless the USA spends MUCH more than any nation even though they have the most expensive and state of the art weapons systems and military...
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
China is attempting to preemptively end run any possible "containment" strategy by the West or India by teaming up with as many "partners" as possible.
In the 20th century this would have worked, but it is a tenuous and unstable policy at best (think of the Hitler-Stalin deals both during the rise of the Third Reich and in the early years of WW II), and assumes the United States can only achieve "containment" by surrounding China with hostile or at least pro US nations.
I think the 21rst century will see the Americans running a hugely sophisticated "4GW" operation instead which nudges at Chinese economics, politics and culture enough to keep them off balance and allow the United States to continue to accrue the compound economic growth which will cause it to accelerate away from its rivals. If it does come to blows, the Chinese will find their investment in a 3 million man mechanized army trumped by a more flexible, agile and lethal "networked" force, schooled in waging war from PSO's and counter insergency all the way to massive armoured thrusts, and one with a global reach. This is not to say that an actual shooting war with China would be a cakewalk, or anything less than a disaster, but China is attempting to gain global pre eminence using "tried and true" methods in a new environment: dinosaurs fighting against mammals!
In the years prior to WW I, Europe and the world were economically connected in ways that were only rebuilt in the 1990s. Many rational people confidently predicted the tight economic webs would prevent the outbreak of future wars, but in August 1914, they were tragically proven wrong.
In the 20th century this would have worked, but it is a tenuous and unstable policy at best (think of the Hitler-Stalin deals both during the rise of the Third Reich and in the early years of WW II), and assumes the United States can only achieve "containment" by surrounding China with hostile or at least pro US nations.
I think the 21rst century will see the Americans running a hugely sophisticated "4GW" operation instead which nudges at Chinese economics, politics and culture enough to keep them off balance and allow the United States to continue to accrue the compound economic growth which will cause it to accelerate away from its rivals. If it does come to blows, the Chinese will find their investment in a 3 million man mechanized army trumped by a more flexible, agile and lethal "networked" force, schooled in waging war from PSO's and counter insergency all the way to massive armoured thrusts, and one with a global reach. This is not to say that an actual shooting war with China would be a cakewalk, or anything less than a disaster, but China is attempting to gain global pre eminence using "tried and true" methods in a new environment: dinosaurs fighting against mammals!
In the years prior to WW I, Europe and the world were economically connected in ways that were only rebuilt in the 1990s. Many rational people confidently predicted the tight economic webs would prevent the outbreak of future wars, but in August 1914, they were tragically proven wrong.
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 50
- Points
- 330
a_majoor said:
Barnett's argument on this subject is that China will be tied to the West as a result of what will be their insatiable appetite for energy, and the Foreign Direct Investment that will be required to pull that off. There will be a significant cash delta from the funds the Chinese will be able to raise internally or from their most important trading partner, Japan. That delta of cash resides on Wall Street or in the EU.
Barnett talks around the subject of Globalization I (1870-1914), and touches on the subsequent failure and deconstruction of the interconnectedness that occurred Post WWI and up until Globalization II (1945-1980). The impression I am left with is that the difference between WWI and today (Globalization III) is a matter of scale, of institutional robustness (IMF, World Bank) and the development and refining of rulesets to regulate the flow of capital, people, energy and security.
I find Barnett's arguments very seductive and appealing, but I can't say that I have completely bought into them.
I also have a very limited patience for economics and economic history unfortunately, and therefore I find myself lacking the will or the knowledge to prove Barnett wrong. Must have been the course on Soviet economic history I took in university that soured me. Needless to say, after reading Barnett The Pentagon's New Map and Fergusons Collosus, I am done wrt to (even relatively lightweight) economic theory for another couple of months yet.
If anyone can post or direct me to an argument disproving Barnett in 2000 words or less I will be very interested to read it. Ok, don't worry about the length unless it is a book!
- Reaction score
- 6,316
- Points
- 1,260
Infanteer asked a question which I have been ducking while I tried to frame and answer based on something better than my personal impressions and which does not come across as overtly racist.
Here goes:
"¢ I agree that Kennan's containment model counted on the USSR being unable to make soviet communism work; but
"¢ I believe that -
o As I said earlier, China was communistic but it has reverted (maybe is still in the process of reverting) to a more familiar system of government - an oligarchy supported by a skilled mandarinate. That being said, China and the Chinese people - including the overseas Chinese, has a very strong sense of community,
o Chinese culture has developed, over the millennia, a sense of insularity which will make it naturally resistant to too much intercourse with foreigners - and war is the most intimate form of intercourse between nations.
I think we need to understand the Chinese people a bit better. This is the most hierarchical of all the great, modern societies or cultures. Consider, only, language. Every Chinese person, as they acquire their milk tongue (the language learned at one's mother's breast), learns that every person has a place - there are distinct, separate words for elder and younger brother, different ones for elder and younger sister, elder auntie and so on and so forth. As they grow older they learn that words used as titles have values: elder outranks younger; teacher outranks rich businessman which, in turn, outranks soldier, even general, and so on. Elder professor is a couplet which has enormous stature. There are, also, many, many (mostly pejorative) words and phrases to describe foreigners, foreign countries and foreign ideas; this reflects a well defined sense of insularity, sometimes verging on xenophobia. Language both drives culture and then reflects it back on society, at large. Culture drives politics: both polity and policy. The hierarchical and insular nature of China's culture means that a relatively small number of (generally well educated, thoughtful) people can steer a huge country- on most important issues there is no split in China such as we see in the USA, today, or in Europe or Canada, for that matter. People like Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were able to wield enormous power and, even more important, indirect influence because they controlled and taught the new, improved, modern mandarinate.
(I have a friend, a brilliant mathematician and professor in a major Chinese university. She is, year after year, invited (and very well paid) to give seminars to post-doctoral fellows at major universities in Asia, Europe and North America. She longs for the day when she (only 38 years old, now!) will have grey hair and will be elder scholar, not just "Honoured Professor Xiao.â ? (See: I edited out Prof. Xiao's home page because it contained her e-mail address and I though I might be compromising her privacy )
(It is important to understand that academic standards in China are very, very high. The competition to enter a tiny handful of the best universities is astonishing - these (Peking University, for example) schools probably have 'better' entrants who undertake 'harder' studies than Harvard, Yale, MIT or Cambridge - Caltech might be in the same league, it, like Peking, is mainly, a 'school' for PhD candidates.)
All that to say that I think Chinese society has, within itself, the seeds of it own survival. The Chinese don't care, quite simply don't care if we are rich and have a liberal-democratic society. They want to be rich, too, but they will take whatever they need from us and ignore the rest - e.g. democracy. They have copied many of our institutions - people like Anson Chan (see: http://www.proudfootconsulting.com/advisor_bio_achan.asp ) worked assiduously, behind the scenes, to reform China's banking and securities laws and regulations to allow a relatively businesslike and 'fair' regime which would attract foreign capital, working capital - rather than just tied investments in joint ventures. But, despite her own, personal views, Chan never promoted anything like British style liberal-democracy - apparently considering it ill-suited to 21st century China.
I believe the Chinese are bent on sharing the world with an American led West for a century or so (the Chinese think in centuries) ... dominating the East, completely, and being able to buy and sell advantageously with whomever. Conquest, as we understand it, has no advantage for China - they want a degree of submission without the bother (and danger) of too much interaction. China and the Chinese are nationalistic, chauvinistic, ambitious, communitarian, hard working and animated by family values. They are a formidable people, thankfully it is a conservative, hierarchical, tradition-bound society which fears war - not for death and destruction but for too much 'contact' with the enemy.
As to Infanteer's second question: I believe we always have strategic choices ... until we - like Blum, Chamberlain, Daladier, MacDonald, Roosevelt, Stalin et al - dither our way out of options (àla Paul Martin in 2004).
Infanteer said:
Here goes:
"¢ I agree that Kennan's containment model counted on the USSR being unable to make soviet communism work; but
"¢ I believe that -
o As I said earlier, China was communistic but it has reverted (maybe is still in the process of reverting) to a more familiar system of government - an oligarchy supported by a skilled mandarinate. That being said, China and the Chinese people - including the overseas Chinese, has a very strong sense of community,
o Chinese culture has developed, over the millennia, a sense of insularity which will make it naturally resistant to too much intercourse with foreigners - and war is the most intimate form of intercourse between nations.
I think we need to understand the Chinese people a bit better. This is the most hierarchical of all the great, modern societies or cultures. Consider, only, language. Every Chinese person, as they acquire their milk tongue (the language learned at one's mother's breast), learns that every person has a place - there are distinct, separate words for elder and younger brother, different ones for elder and younger sister, elder auntie and so on and so forth. As they grow older they learn that words used as titles have values: elder outranks younger; teacher outranks rich businessman which, in turn, outranks soldier, even general, and so on. Elder professor is a couplet which has enormous stature. There are, also, many, many (mostly pejorative) words and phrases to describe foreigners, foreign countries and foreign ideas; this reflects a well defined sense of insularity, sometimes verging on xenophobia. Language both drives culture and then reflects it back on society, at large. Culture drives politics: both polity and policy. The hierarchical and insular nature of China's culture means that a relatively small number of (generally well educated, thoughtful) people can steer a huge country- on most important issues there is no split in China such as we see in the USA, today, or in Europe or Canada, for that matter. People like Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping were able to wield enormous power and, even more important, indirect influence because they controlled and taught the new, improved, modern mandarinate.
(I have a friend, a brilliant mathematician and professor in a major Chinese university. She is, year after year, invited (and very well paid) to give seminars to post-doctoral fellows at major universities in Asia, Europe and North America. She longs for the day when she (only 38 years old, now!) will have grey hair and will be elder scholar, not just "Honoured Professor Xiao.â ? (See: I edited out Prof. Xiao's home page because it contained her e-mail address and I though I might be compromising her privacy )
(It is important to understand that academic standards in China are very, very high. The competition to enter a tiny handful of the best universities is astonishing - these (Peking University, for example) schools probably have 'better' entrants who undertake 'harder' studies than Harvard, Yale, MIT or Cambridge - Caltech might be in the same league, it, like Peking, is mainly, a 'school' for PhD candidates.)
All that to say that I think Chinese society has, within itself, the seeds of it own survival. The Chinese don't care, quite simply don't care if we are rich and have a liberal-democratic society. They want to be rich, too, but they will take whatever they need from us and ignore the rest - e.g. democracy. They have copied many of our institutions - people like Anson Chan (see: http://www.proudfootconsulting.com/advisor_bio_achan.asp ) worked assiduously, behind the scenes, to reform China's banking and securities laws and regulations to allow a relatively businesslike and 'fair' regime which would attract foreign capital, working capital - rather than just tied investments in joint ventures. But, despite her own, personal views, Chan never promoted anything like British style liberal-democracy - apparently considering it ill-suited to 21st century China.
I believe the Chinese are bent on sharing the world with an American led West for a century or so (the Chinese think in centuries) ... dominating the East, completely, and being able to buy and sell advantageously with whomever. Conquest, as we understand it, has no advantage for China - they want a degree of submission without the bother (and danger) of too much interaction. China and the Chinese are nationalistic, chauvinistic, ambitious, communitarian, hard working and animated by family values. They are a formidable people, thankfully it is a conservative, hierarchical, tradition-bound society which fears war - not for death and destruction but for too much 'contact' with the enemy.
As to Infanteer's second question: I believe we always have strategic choices ... until we - like Blum, Chamberlain, Daladier, MacDonald, Roosevelt, Stalin et al - dither our way out of options (àla Paul Martin in 2004).
- Reaction score
- 6,316
- Points
- 1,260
Further to the above, everything China does is cause for some concern. See e.g. today's Globe and Mail (ROB) at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041230.wxchina1230/BNStory/Business/
I offer this to highlight my earlier comment about China's great hunger for resources. That, not ideology or even a centuries old antipathy towards Russia, will drive China in the 21st century. Look in a modern atlas â “ see the resource base in Siberia, Asian Siberia, East of the Urals and, especially, East of the Yenisey River.
I offer this to highlight my earlier comment about China's great hunger for resources. That, not ideology or even a centuries old antipathy towards Russia, will drive China in the 21st century. Look in a modern atlas â “ see the resource base in Siberia, Asian Siberia, East of the Urals and, especially, East of the Yenisey River.
Similar threads
