US has 11 carrier battle groups. China doesn’t even have one.
Orion was talking about this:
The number of carriers is no longer a measure of naval power. Technology is altering all the rules. US expects that a Chinese act of belligerence in the region would begin with missile saturation attacks on US Forces Japan, US Forces Korea and the Philippines. Hence relocation of some of those forces to Australia ala ‘force dispersal.’
True. And I’m not disagreeing with Doc BTW. The recent carrier launch is an example of their intent to project power outside their ‘own backyard.’ And in relation to that example it’s worth keeping in mind China’s weaknesses and strengths.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
True. And I’m not disagreeing with Doc BTW. The recent carrier launch is an example of their intent to project power outside their ‘own backyard.’ And in relation to that example it’s worth keeping in mind China’s weaknesses and strengths.[/quote]
Yeah. The thing about a Chinese aircraft carrier is, you have launch and half an hour later, you’re hungry again.
(Ba-ding!)
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
True. And I’m not disagreeing with Doc BTW. The recent carrier launch is an example of their intent to project power outside their ‘own backyard.’ And in relation to that example it’s worth keeping in mind China’s weaknesses and strengths.[/quote]
Yeah. The thing about a Chinese aircraft carrier is, you have launch and half an hour later, you’re hungry again.
(Ba-ding!)[/quote]
Might be of particular interest to those in California.
http://strictlyright.com/2010/11/was-that-a-chinese-missile-off-the-california-coast/
“Asian intelligence reports claim that the Chinese submarine that launched the ‘mystery missile’ cruised through the weakly defended South Pacific, getting to 35 miles off the California coast, from where the missile was fired.”
[quote]joebassin wrote:
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.” The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictatorâ??s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html[/quote]
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Yes.
They are the future.
Learn Mandarin.[/quote]
And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]
I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]
So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?
That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]
I think I can.
We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.
They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.
For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]
Wow.
Orion, you really have to do something about your bigotry toward the US.
It blinds you profoundly, and makes an otherwise bright and insightful person sound like a blithering moron. [/quote]
Alright.
See, the Chinese have no messianic mission.
They never had.
They are Chinese, what more could they be?
They never showed any inclination of remodeling the world in their image, whereas the US has started quite a few crusades to do exactly that.
Granted, one could interpret some excursions into Korea or Vietnam as such, but that could also be interpreted as keeping you own backyard clean.
[/quote]
You should try telling the Tibetans that the Chinese have no intention of remodeling countries in their image. They would be incredulous.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.” The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictatorÃ?¢??s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html[/quote]
Not my problem if you don’t like the truth.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Look, they send you stuff, you send them ever depreciating dollars.
You have no complaints, you play as dirty as they do.
But, this is not as it has to be, this is how you want it to be.
You cannot cheat an honest man, but that is not exactly what you are, is it?[/quote]
Oh good - incoherent babble, and we aren’t three posts into an exchange. Now I remember why I skip your posts.
[/quote]
Because reading comprehension is something you have just barely mastered?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
and who trusts a Communist supergiant to be a benevolent father?
[/quote]
Orion?[/quote]
No-
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
What would bother me more is if they showed any sign of projecting military power beyond their own backyard.
They dont. [/quote]
Have a little google - “Unrestricted Warfare” - PLA strategy for China in the 21st century, translated by the CIA and published in 1999. It outlines China’s asymmetric warfare strategy against the US including the use of terrorism and an argument that there should be no distinction between civilian and military targets - i.e. a kind of ‘total war.’
Part of China’s asymmetric warfare strategy outlined more than a decade ago and being played out as we speak:
Financial Warfare (stock market crashes and currency manipulation)
Smuggling Warfare (flooding an enemies markets with illegal goods)
Cultural Warfare (attacking the values of an enemies culture)
Drug Warfare (flooding a society with illegal drugs)
Media Warfare (manipulating foreign media)
Technological Warfare (gaining control of or stealing vital technologies)
Resources Warfare (manipulating or control scarce or vital resources)
Psychological Warfare (dominating a rival nations’ perceptions)
Network Warfare (cyber attacks and hacking)
International Law Warfare (subverting international law)
Environmental Warfare (manipulating environmental constraints)
Economic Aid Warfare (creating aid dependency)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Generation_Warfare[/quote]
The word “war” has no meaning to you whatsoever, right?
Hint: It involves taking extreme measures so that metal pierces the enemies flesh. [/quote]
Wow.
Unbelievable ingorance of Asian thoughts on warfare.
Are you just trolling at this point?[/quote]
No, but if they deviously manipulate instead of outright bombing people I very much prefer that.
In fact, I would prefer the US to do that do.
We actually would have the superior product in terms of ideas, but what Western politician could convincingly and with a straight face campaign for liberty, or promote it underhandedly.
The Iranians can get Western television, even though the regime does not want them too, they Chinese can get around internet blocks even though their regime does not want them too, yet instead of showing them another way of life we are moving more in their direction.
The truth is that one episode of Baywatch does more harm to the Iranian regime than all the bombs thrown off over the Middle East combined.
Cheaper and more attractive too.
They want Mc Donalds, Baywatch, jeans and tentacle porn, let their government try to take it away from them.
Makes us rich, makes their people happy, keeps their regime occupied.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Yes.
They are the future.
Learn Mandarin.[/quote]
And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]
I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]
So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?
That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]
I think I can.
We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.
They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.
For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]
Wow.
Orion, you really have to do something about your bigotry toward the US.
It blinds you profoundly, and makes an otherwise bright and insightful person sound like a blithering moron. [/quote]
Alright.
See, the Chinese have no messianic mission.
They never had.
They are Chinese, what more could they be?
They never showed any inclination of remodeling the world in their image, whereas the US has started quite a few crusades to do exactly that.
Granted, one could interpret some excursions into Korea or Vietnam as such, but that could also be interpreted as keeping you own backyard clean.
[/quote]
You should try telling the Tibetans that the Chinese have no intention of remodeling countries in their image. They would be incredulous.
[/quote]
Ah, but according to the Chinese the Tibetans are Chinese.
As is Hong Kong, as is Taiwan.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
To cultivate that relationship with a relatively free economy while still clinging to statist fantasies, that was the mistake.
The US could have outperformed China, but not with their hands tied, their feet hobbled and a ball gag. [/quote]
Incorrect, because the issue is not strictly economic outperformance. It is a strategic mistake to allow unfriendly rivals access to your markets so that rival can arm itself by virtue of that relationship. Even if you “outperform” them over 20 years, they grow and sharpen their fangs, and in the process become emboldened. That’s bad strategy - better to let an unfriendly rival wither on the vine than help it grow strong.[/quote]
I prefer unfriendly rivals who know that they in part depend on me to outright enemies.
Hence trade.
Especially if they already have me firmly by the balls.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Yes.
They are the future.
Learn Mandarin.[/quote]
And get used to having even less freedom?[/quote]
I do not really think that they are interested in making us play by their book, which would be nice for a change.[/quote]
So, if they invent / develop /control the next internet, for instance, we can expect them to allow info to flow freely?
That may be a bad analogy, but I don’t think you can discount the political & human rights implications for the whole world of Chinese economic dominance. [/quote]
I think I can.
We are not part of the Middle Kingdom, I doubt that they seriously care who does what among the barbarians.
They are not American, their arrogance plays out completely differently and is, quite possibly more bearable.
For Europe especially, because we are only 1/3 to 1/2 barbarians. [/quote]
You really are on a roll with your ignorance. If you want to see just how barbaric China is look at what they have done to Tibet. Or look at their client state North Korea, which is home to the worlds largest, most brutal, concentration camps.
What they are doing in Africa is not good either. China is dangerous and it is getting worse.
[/quote]
A book I may need to read, and one from which orion would benefit:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/16/an_important_new_book_112083.html
"…But the authors were right to lead with 50 pages itemizing in grizzly detail Chinese human rights abuses – for the profound reason that after reading those first 50 pages, the reader will be impassioned to resist Chinese domination not only on behalf of American interests, but also for the sake of humanity.
Today, many people think America is in decline and mentally acquiesce to the thought that the rise of China is inevitable. Those 50 pages will stiffen your resolve to be part of the struggle to never let such a malignancy spread to the rest of the world – let alone to America…
In an astounding narrative, Decker and Triplett have refuted the growing authoritarian temptation expressed for too many elite people around the world by Thomas Friedman, the senior New York Times foreign-policy columnist who wrote recently: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”
The authors do not mention Friedman. In those first 50 pages, they focus their compelling narrative on a strictly factual expose of the moral horror being brought down on the Chinese people by their ever-more-powerful Chinese leadership.
The authors carefully delineate the reversal in the last decade of the previous modest Chinese movement toward rule of law and a small hint at decency. It had been the hope of everyone from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger onward that as China came into the world and embraced capitalism it would become “a modern, progressive society that (would) eventually bring the communist state in line with the rest of the civilized world.” That was the moral foundation for “engaging” with China. It was also a convenient rationalization for trying to make a fortune in the vast Chinese market.
But, grimly, the authors explicate the sad fact that the engagement was a false dawn. In the last decade, it has gotten worse and worse as the Chinese leadership has now consolidated its power. Oligarchic “princelings”-- the 200 to 300 descendants of the founders of the Communist Party – have gained a stranglehold on both the business and government of China. They are using the incomprehensibly vast power that comes with that total control to buy off the business class, exploit the working class and peasants, and prepare China to replace America as the world’s dominant nation.
Once you have read the first searing 50 pages of this book, the hope that China is becoming a “decent,” liberal society is no longer morally available to you. I mention Friedman because of his claim that Chinese leaders are a “reasonably enlightened group of people.” The authors’ narrative shows Friedman’s words to be not merely fatuous, but uniquely immoral."
[/quote]
So?
They are not very nice to their population, but they never were.
What would bother me more is if they showed any sign of projecting military power beyond their own backyard.
They dont. [/quote]
You really are on a roll with your ignorance. You should just stop now because you really don’t have a clue of what’s going on in the world.
The most significant weapons system for projection of power that a nation can possess is the aircraft carrier. For several years the Chinese have been scouring the world looking for aircraft carriers that were to be scrapped and buying them. They bought the HMAS Melbourne from the Australian navy. They tried to buy the USS Coral Sea but the navy blocked the transfer and they scrapped it in the US instead.
More significant has been their purchase from the Ukraine of the Varyag which they claimed they were going to turn into a casino. Instead of turning it into a casino they have refitted and completed it as the aircraft carrier it was meant to be. It went out on sea trials August 11th of this year.
China’s first aircraft carrier ‘starts sea trials’
When the Chinese purchased the Varyag hulk they also purchased the blueprints for an extra two million dollars. It is from those designs that they are building two more conventional aircraft carriers. These ships will be just a little bit smaller than the old American Forrestal class super carriers.
Even more significantly they have purchased the blueprints for the nuclear powered Project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk class, which would have been just a little bit smaller the Nimitz class.
Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk - Wikipedia
China Has Plans For Five Carriers
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2011/01/01/DT_01_01_2011_p71-272520.xml
These ships will give the Chinese projection of power capabilities on a par with the US navy super carriers. In the Pacific people are worried about it. The Americans are worried about it. The Japanese are so worried about it they are building their own aircraft carriers. The Taiwanese are worried about it. The only people who are not concerned about it are hicks in the sticks in land locked European back woods countries like Austria.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]revamp wrote:
China has sent out a few warnings to us aussies that we may be caught in a cross fire if we allow you yanks to build a base in aus.[/quote]
Yeah well, you might. [/quote]
Orion you really are a piece of work. The Aussies are a weak country with a vast amount of land and natural resources. They are temptingly close to several countries with massive populations that could use the Lebensraum. They aren’t an insignificant backwater that isn’t worth invading like Austria or Switzerland. So neutrality is not an option for them.
If they don’t ally with the US, who else are they going to ally themselves with?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
To cultivate that relationship with a relatively free economy while still clinging to statist fantasies, that was the mistake.
The US could have outperformed China, but not with their hands tied, their feet hobbled and a ball gag. [/quote]
Incorrect, because the issue is not strictly economic outperformance. It is a strategic mistake to allow unfriendly rivals access to your markets so that rival can arm itself by virtue of that relationship. Even if you “outperform” them over 20 years, they grow and sharpen their fangs, and in the process become emboldened. That’s bad strategy - better to let an unfriendly rival wither on the vine than help it grow strong.[/quote]
Look, they send you stuff, you send them ever depreciating dollars.
You have no complaints, you play as dirty as they do.
But, this is not as it has to be, this is how you want it to be.
You cannot cheat an honest man, but that is not exactly what you are, is it?[/quote]
How on earth did you ever get such a stupid idea as “you cannot cheat an honest man”? You are getting sillier and sillier. An honest man is the easiest person to cheat and take advantage of. Because he is the most trusting and least likely to see it coming.