Powell on the National Guard

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:52:33 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .

Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
China in the near future for control of the far East.

Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
fight.

And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in
such a war.

Really? While I agree the likelihood of such a conflict is not that great at
present (provided the PRC does not go stupid over Taiwan), I don't really
see how we "could not prevail" in a military conflict with the PRC. It is
not as if prevailing requires us to to put boots-on-the-ground in Beijing.
The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade, and its people
are becoming more and more enamored of materialistic possessions. Turning
off their power grid, chunking up their communications systems, and denying
them any viable foreign trade (i.e., naval blockade) would seem to offer a
reasonable chance for us to "prevail" against them. I don't think the PRC
cares to risk finding out the hard way.

The Nov/Dec issue of Foreign Affairs focussed on the "New China" and
offered some rather interesting economic insights. Thinks like more
than 40,000 Nationalist Chinese companies having offices, plants,
branches on the mainland and more than 400,000 Nationalists working on
the mainland. The economic integration of the PRC and ROC is
considerable and despite the political posturing of the leadership,
probably dominant.

The final straw in the PRC coffin of political control will come when
the country is forced to open up for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
which they fought so strenuously to gain. With literally millions of
visitors from outside the Communist paradise, the leadership will be
forced to be on their best behavior and the masses will be exposed to
the magical world of democracy, free press, information and idea
exchange. "How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen
Paree???"

As for military force, China certainly has manpower and they
definitely have men under arms, but they don't have offensive force
projection capability. They don't have a blue-water navy, they don't
have a meaningful offensive air force and they don't have the
necessary airlift capability to fight a mobile war even within their
own borders.

We must get along with China, and China to prosper
must get along with the U.S. Fortunately both countries seem to
understand that.

I like the view posited by some national security wonk a couple of years
back: he described our strategy vis a vis the PRC as "congagement", with us
both containing and engaging the PRC. Engagement generally seems to be
working, but if the PRC *really* thought that the US could not confront them
militarily all bets would be off and they'd be a lot more antagonistic to
their neighbors.


Amazingly enough, it was the enlightened foreign policy of
Kissinger/Nixon with regard to China (hold the flames regarding other
errors of that administration), that opened the door to dialogue with
China. Precisely the policy of containing militarily without
threatening while engaging economically which inevitably undermines
the shortages and failures of central planning as compared to a free
market.

The poor Chinese leadership never saw K-Mart coming!



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:52:33 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .

Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
China in the near future for control of the far East.

Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
fight.

And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in
such a war.

Really? While I agree the likelihood of such a conflict is not that great
at
present (provided the PRC does not go stupid over Taiwan), I don't really
see how we "could not prevail" in a military conflict with the PRC. It is
not as if prevailing requires us to to put boots-on-the-ground in
Beijing.
The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade, and its
people
are becoming more and more enamored of materialistic possessions. Turning
off their power grid, chunking up their communications systems, and
denying
them any viable foreign trade (i.e., naval blockade) would seem to offer
a
reasonable chance for us to "prevail" against them. I don't think the PRC
cares to risk finding out the hard way.

The Nov/Dec issue of Foreign Affairs focussed on the "New China" and
offered some rather interesting economic insights. Thinks like more
than 40,000 Nationalist Chinese companies having offices, plants,
branches on the mainland and more than 400,000 Nationalists working on
the mainland. The economic integration of the PRC and ROC is
considerable and despite the political posturing of the leadership,
probably dominant.

The final straw in the PRC coffin of political control will come when
the country is forced to open up for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
which they fought so strenuously to gain. With literally millions of
visitors from outside the Communist paradise, the leadership will be
forced to be on their best behavior and the masses will be exposed to
the magical world of democracy, free press, information and idea
exchange. "How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen
Paree???"

Exactly. They are finding that modern capitalism, which they have
increasingly embraced out of economic necessity, has an inherent tendency to
engender individual independence. I think you are also right in noting that
the Party's biggest "threat" is currently from within as a result of this
increased openess.


As for military force, China certainly has manpower and they
definitely have men under arms, but they don't have offensive force
projection capability. They don't have a blue-water navy, they don't
have a meaningful offensive air force and they don't have the
necessary airlift capability to fight a mobile war even within their
own borders.

Dead on target. Even the PLA realizes this, and did as early as after the
first Gulf War, after observing the devastating effects of US precision
engagement against the Iraqis. They are trying to redesign their forces
accordingly, but they have a lot of institutional inertia to overcome, and
it will be some time before thay have both the tools and the expertise to be
considered a first-rate military power.

snip


The poor Chinese leadership never saw K-Mart coming!

Ugh! They can keep K-Mart. That is a prime example of a large company that
forgot its fortunes depended upon customer satisfaction; gimme WallyWorld or
Tar-shay anyday!

Brooks




Ed Rasimus

Remember, that won't happen until the oil begins to run out .

People don't seem to understand the concept of pricing. Oil will get
more expensive in this discade, not in some distant future, because
China will be importing more of it.

(Assuming that China keeps prospering, and I do hope so. Europe and
Japan both seem permanently mired; China seems likely to become the
world's second economy, and for the first time since the 1980s there
will be another economy beside the U.S. that is vibrant enough to
export prosperity. It is very tiresome for America to have to keep
dragging the rest of the world around like an anvil.)

As oil (gradually) becomes expensive, alternatives will make their
appearance.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade

We rather like it as well

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

R. David Steele wrote:
Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
China in the near future for control of the far East.

Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
fight.

Easier said than done. We got into that one because the Serbs were practicing a
little genocide against their former Moslem neighbors and we decided to break it
up, good guys that we are. How's it going to look if we pull out and let them
resume their blood bath? When it comes to something like genocide, aren't we
supposed to stop it and see that it stays stopped? Or would looking the other
way make the practice palatable?

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
R. David Steele wrote:
Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
China in the near future for control of the far East.

Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
fight.

Easier said than done. We got into that one because the Serbs were
practicing a
little genocide against their former Moslem neighbors and we decided to
break it
up, good guys that we are. How's it going to look if we pull out and let
them
resume their blood bath? When it comes to something like genocide, aren't
we
supposed to stop it and see that it stays stopped? Or would looking the
other
way make the practice palatable?

Have you been hiding under the same rock that Art inhabits? Noticed any
changes in terms of how things are these days in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
SFOR was down to 12K troops total (not just from the US) in 2002; MNB-N, for
which the US has been the major contributor, is down to 2,700 troops total.
The situation has largely stabilized, and the question of why we have to
continue to contribute troops to this task is a viable one. After all,
Georgie, your man Clinton told us when he sent our IFOR contingent into the
region back in late 1995 that we would be out of there in 1997...which would
seem to weigh against your whining about the continuing troop requirement in
Iraq today.

Brooks


George Z.

When it comes to something like genocide, aren't we
supposed to stop it and see that it stays stopped? Or would looking the
other
way make the practice palatable?

Correctly, Clinton took no direct action in a far worse genocide in Rwanda,
just prior to our involvement in Kosovo. As horrible as ethnic violence is, if
its not in your national interest to get directly involved, you don't. The
Clinton administration thought our involvement in a European issue was in our
national interest (and, for the most part, I agree) however there comes a time
when you need to re-evaluate the situation. In my opinion, we're no longer
needed in the the Balkans, and if trouble reappears, we evaluate that situation
again.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ...
Hey Kenneth:

That's a moot point. You only includes the gas burned by the *onboard* ICE.
I specifically said "topoff electricity" which most certainly is NOT
included in the mpg figure. The mpg figure is worthless anyhow, as others

You obviously know nothing about the currently-available
gasoline/electric
hybrids. In the US, that's the Toyota Prius, the Honda Insight, and
the Honda Civic Hybrid (and hopefully more in the next year). With
the exception of 1 or 2 people who have been doing some serious
hacking/modding on their car to make a gridable hybrid, there IS NO
PLUG for any "topoff electricity."
ALL electricity for the car is either directly generated by excess
power from the gasoline engine, or through regenerative braking (when
coasting or braking, the otherwise lost kinetic energy (which would
convert to heat in brake pads) is tranferred by the electric motor
to the battery pack into kinetic energy). The hybrids are
self-sufficient
with charging or "topping off" the battery. The EPA MPG figures are
just for the gasoline, because that is the only fuel that you can put
into the current hybrids (no electric plug).

The only plug my 3-year-old 2001 Prius has seen is the same one that
most
people use on their traditional cars - the gas pump at the service
station.

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top
off" electricity to the vehicle and the extra energy required to manufacture
the hybrid side of the vehicle in the first place. Well, o.k., the newest
hybrids are probably right at break even now.

I understand that the battery bank in the gas-electrics like the Civic
have to be replaced at five years, so that's a measure of what the
hybrid side costs. (The car itself is really rather inexpensive.)

Where did you hear that?

Just because the warranty on the battery pack runs out in 8-10 years,
doesn't mean that the battery automatically needs replacing. (I'll
skip over that you can just replace a bad cell, rather than the entire
pack...) I have not heard of massive battery replacements for the
1998 Prius (originally sold only in Japan, now showing up used
elsewhere), but the battery technology has greatly improved from that
older model. (2004 Prius is on the 3rd generation)

Just because a bumper-to-bumper warranty expires, it doesn't
automatically mean that the bumpers will fall off or stop protecting
you in an accident either...