If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
GWB and the Air Guard | JD | Military Aviation | 77 | March 17th 04 10:52 AM |
Colin Powell on National Guard | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 12 | February 23rd 04 01:26 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |