Posted on 06/20/2005 6:21:19 PM PDT by CHARLITE
In the case of China I think you might be right. But the Muslims are a different matter. They are to irrational. I do not get a warn fuzzy from the Iranians or Saudis have nukes. Too many extremest in each country.
Sorry for the double posts.
You sound well informed on the technology aspect of air warfare...How many AMRAAMs does an F-15, or actually F-18s have, since in the Straits it would be F18s doing the bulk of the fighting?
This strikes me as a bit hysterical WRT China's supposed future plans. China certainly has the ability to become a formidable world power, yet throughout their long history they have been anything but expansionist.
China is becoming more dependent on the world economy, than the world economy is dependent on China. They have probably already crossed the point of no return where they have more to lose than they have to gain. IMHO.
I come down right about at your position, Ramius. The logic of some kind of an irrational, massive nuclear incineration of L.A., Seattle, S.F. or any other American city would get them exactly...........where?.......and what?
The Chinese are a lot of things, but stupid isn't among their national traits. For example, they are playing the little midget in N. Korea against us like a string ensemble.
Thanks for your remarks. Very educated view, IMO.
Char :)
Thanks. :-)
War between the US and China would be mutual suicide. Probably other old enemies would also be zapped and civilization would start over after about 1000 years.
Well Duh. Bid red truck..
"China has never been an aggressor with regard to territorial or ideological expansion"
Wow! Sez Hu? Vietnam? Tibet? Uighuristan? India? Tiwan? Russia? Japan?
"Did you know the rules of engagment during the excercise with India? We were not permitted to use our latest missiles, no AWACS and not the latest F-15 radar. No wonder they won."
There is a BIG BIG disinformation campaign going on. Well firstly:
1. India didnt use the Su-30MKI(which are the real threat jets). Only the Su-30Ks were used which dont come any advanced weaponry or radar.
2. Secondly neither did India use (or have) AWACS. Its only now that we are buying the Isreali Phalcon.
3. Thirdly the US fighters were out numbered (1:3) but only on paper. All the jets werent Su30s. Many were Mig 27s and Mig21 BNs which are ground attacks or the Mig 21(Bis) which are antiquated (40 years old). And the F-15Cs were doing air superiority. Thats pretty much the odds they are likely to face while fighting over the straits.
It wasnt the case that all the odds were against the US fighters.
"China faces a military threat from no one, so why the firepower?"
Heh... the US... Taiwan... Japan... Vietnam (China invaded Vietnam -- briefly -- in the late 1970s)... Pakistan (a nuclear power, lest we forget)... India (also nuclear, and China's traditional enemy; China supports Maoist terrorists in the Himalayas)... Russia... the former SSRs of Central Asia... China's Moslem population... the Tibetans... China's Chinese population... the political enemies within the Party...
One of the consequences of a centrally managed single party state is that it's a centrally managed single party state.
"I could go on but nothing I say is going tamp down the hysteria surrounding the Chinese military build-up."
Your labeling it hysteria doesn't make it so. We owe it to our troops to give them the best military technology we can. We also need to thwart the Chinese from getting tech from Euros and from greedy corporations in our own country who would gladly sell them anything for military purposes, let alone dual-use technology.
Also, if you are going to take on this argument, take it on properly. Nobody is saying China is a superpower now, nobody is saying they can defeat us militarily now. However, they will one day be a superpower with their growing economy and will be able to fund high tech military from arms dealers the world over.
The Chinese feel they can take Taiwan right now, which is a danger in itself. Even though we will beat them, it will not be bloodless and it won't be a route in another 10 years or so. They don't even have to be a superpower, all China has to do is beat a regional Asian power. They can then coerce Taiwan, Phillipines, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. into giving up disputed islands and in some cases (Taiwan), coerce a false reunification under threat.
Well said.
Also interesting "their economic fortunes might change".
The Chinese stock markets are down 50% in the last year. Can you imagine what the US media would say if the Dow and NASDAQ went down 50%. It would be a huge calamity! Impending Doom! Worse economy in 50 years!
Worrying about China's growing power is a cottage industry hey??? Well, thank God for the nail biters, cause they see the train wreck which is upon us NOW. Your blog suggests you are still stuck in Cold War thinking on what constitutes the nature of warfare or danger to the US. The danger we face from China isn't all about their subs aiming missiles at Los Angeles or Seattle. If you are familiar with 4th Generation warfare concept you surely understand that 21st century warfare may be conducted in many venues and on many fronts.
As Shintaro Ishihara predicted, "The Twenty First century will be a century of economic warfare." In fact the Chinese have stated as much themselves in their 4 pillar concept of war and state craft. They understand an opponent can be defeated just as easily by ruining him financially as by bombing his coastal cities. They also understand that they will never give up their manufacturing base no matter if the invisible hand writing is on the wall and David Ricardo is demanding that they send manufacturing to a cheaper area of the world in the name of the market.
As much grief as Bill Clinton got for allowing Loral and Hughes to hand over dual use technology to China, the pressure to give up the store from US industries and corporations was immense. Just as prior to World War II, Standard Oil, Ford and IBM told US leaders that what was good for their business was good for America - so they sold technology and the weapons of production to the Third Reich. In 1943, the Truman Commission denounced Standard Oil for Trading with the Enemy and slapped them on the wrist for passing an important additive and advanced rubber tech to the Nazis. Nothing much has changed since 1943 as hundreds of transnational companies invest and give over to China information and technology and means of production = at our expense.
Since Bubba Clinton left office, we are still giving away the store to China. Last year the US or rather US investors and owners sold the last rare earth metal foundry -- Magnequench - to the Chinese. The Chinese "promised" to keep the plant in the US. But so much for promises on business deals. They transported it lock, stock and barrel to China. China is now the ONLY nation on earth with an operating rare earth mine - enviros closed ours in California, Ms. Feinstein and one of her husband's many business interests, this time Catellus Corporation got a little of that action. But as usual, the feds let it go - oh well - KFC will cure what ails the Chinese - or so says the US Chamber of Commerce in China. By the by, rare earth metals may be found in smart bombs, GPS tracking systems, and other whiz bang stuff mentioned in your blog.
Trot on over to the ICE website - or DHS site or State Dept. website. Discover how many Chinese students, businessmen, researchers and others have been busted for sneaking US tech to China in the last year alone. The FBI report states that there are 3000 front companies for the PRC in the US. But as usual, COMMERCE uber alles no matter if the end result is our economic and political demise. And you don't think we are not being attacked? It may be with dollars and visas, it may be with their money supplying our spendthrift ways, but it is the Chinese using the money from flip flops and cheap pottery to build their military while we go broke. So you think this is not 21st century warfare?? They won't need to bomb us - they will have the money the denizens of Microsoft and Wal Mart have provided them so that at some point they can militarily kick our butts. Meanwhile, what they don't steal, they buy, copy and produce.
William Hawkins, is a former aide to Rep. Duncan Hunter, Chair of House Armed Services Committee, Hawkins is an expert on the US and Chinese economy, writes for Parameters US Army Mag and other "official" publications had a great analysis on the topic of Chinese warfare by other means. Illuminating as a matter of fact.
Renowned Strategist Warns of Dire Threat from China
William R. Hawkins
Friday, May 27, 2005
The new book China: The Gathering Threat by the late Constantine Menges deserves to become a best seller. Menges first presents a well documented history of the last half-century of U.S.-China relations, showing how Beijing has expanded its ambitions as its economy has grown, until it now plans to dominate not just Asia, but events globally.
Dr. Menges then turns his attention to the situation in Russia, where out of national weakness and anger over the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Vladimir Putin has aligned with Beijing, even though China poses a major threat to Russian interests in both Central Asia and the Far East. Finally, Menges proposes a comprehensive strategy to contain China until internal democratic forces can change the regime into one that can be trusted.
Constantine Menges devoted his entire life to the service of the United States. His untimely death in 2004 left a void among that small cadre of strategic thinkers who are also experienced activists on the world stage. Menges was born September 1, 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland to start World War II in Europe. He was born in Turkey, to which his parents had fled because of their outspoken opposition to Adolf Hitler, and came to America at age four. Menges would spend his career fighting against the spread of tyranny.
As a student in Prague when the Berlin Wall was being built, he smuggled refugees out of East Germany. Menges earned his doctorate from Columbia University, then went to the Rand Corporation where he wrote papers that anticipated the Reagan Doctrine, which brought down the Soviet Empire. He argued that “communist regimes are very vulnerable to a democratic national revolution that is conducted with skill and determination.” He served the Nixon and Ford administrations in the field of civil rights, having worked for voting rights in Mississippi and marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.
Menges warned President Jimmy Carter in 1977 that the friendly government in Iran might be overthrown and replaced by a radical Islamic state. In 1979 this happened, imposing one of the greatest strategic defeats on U.S. policy of the post-war era – one that still haunts us today as the Tehran mullahs develop nuclear weapons.
When President Ronald Reagan took office, Menges worked for the CIA and then on the National Security Council. He played a vital role in fighting the spread of Communism in Central America and drew up the plan for the 1983 invasion of Grenada, which toppled a pro-Castro tyrant. Menges warned President George H. W. Bush of the rising tide of terrorism and drew up a plan to combat it (Menges never talked of a threat without providing a counter-plan), but the incoming Clinton administration had no interest in the subject.
During the Clinton interregnum, Menges moved from government to academia as a professor of international relations at George Washington University. He was active as an advisor to many members of Congress, which is where I met him while working for Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Under the joint sponsorship of Hunter’s office and Menges’ “Transitions to Democracy” project, we hosted discussion sessions among Congressional staff members who dealt with national defense, foreign policy and international economics.
I had read several of Menges’ books before I met him. His memoir of the Reagan years, Inside the National Security Council, made my blood boil. It exposed the ways in which the State Department “career” bureaucracy had tried to sabotage the president’s foreign policy. This is a problem that plagues President George W. Bush today.
I was thus honored to be asked to appear on a panel at the Hudson Institute to promote China: The Gathering Threat. My role was to discuss China’s economy and Menges’ concern that U.S. trade policy was helping to give Beijing the resources needed to challenge American security interests around the world. Menges advocates an immediate end to trade deficits with China to bolster American industry and to aid democratic allies whose economies are also being ravaged in competition with Chinese exports. The gains from trade should be shared between countries who have compatible interests and values, not used to increase the capabilities of rivals.
Such a change in U.S. trade policy would also dramatically slow the Chinese economy and discredit the Beijing dictatorship, opening the door for democratic reformers to make their case that China can only progress if it adopts a liberating system of popular government. Menges does not want to fight a war with China, but to promote change in Beijing before the regime thinks it is powerful enough to risk a war.
Rapid economic growth under a dictatorship that views the United States as its “main enemy” poses a threat even more potent than the Soviets. The USSR eventually imploded because of the inherent flaws in the Marxist model. China has sought to avoid the same fate by “opening” to capitalism. Many in the West have naively hoped that this alone would bring about political reform and an eventual move towards democracy. But what has actually transpired is the movement of Beijing from communism to fascism – the use of capitalist energy to fuel the ambitions of a tyrannical government.
The Cold War strategy of containment was based on cutting Moscow off from outside sources of capital, technology, and trade until the system collapsed. In stark contrast, China has benefitted from a flood of outside support. Since 1993, the United States alone has given China some $800 billion in hard currency from its expanding trade deficit. The 2005 deficit will likely give Beijing over $200 billion more, putting the cumulative total of wealth transferred from America to China at over a trillion dollars. Add to that the surpluses China has run with Europe and Japan, plus foreign investment, cheap credit, and technology transfers, and it is clear that transnational corporations and banks are primarily responsible for the rise of Beijing’s power.
And here is where democracy cuts both ways. Corporate lobbyists work very hard to prevent the U.S. government from taking action to contain or deter Beijing. Chinese strategists assume, writes Menges, “that all private businessmen are self-interested and self-seeking and that they do not consider or care about the broader national or geopolitical consequences of their actions” and that the transnational corporations “will continue to help China accomplish its purposes in the years ahead.” It is imperative that in Washington “government officials, not businessmen, decide what is in the broader national interest of the United States.” But weaning politicians from corporate influence (and money) is not an easy task.
Exactly a week before the Hudson Institute event, the annual Fortune Global Forum opened May 16 in Beijing. The Global Forum was an invitation-only event “limited to chairmen, CEOs, and presidents of major multinational corporations” according to its website, though Chinese government officials (including President Hu Jintao) were more than welcome. The description of the event stated, “As the world's economic center of gravity shifts to Asia, the dynamics of the global economy are changing dramatically. Already a dominant force in trade, China will overtake the US to become the world's largest economy by mid-century.... The focus of the 2005 Forum will be how multinationals can tap into the enormous potential of China. Among the featured speakers were presidents and CEOs from General Motors, Motorola, Wal-Mart, and Goldman-Sachs, which has put together the financing for many major Chinese projects.
President Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, had been a co-chairman of Goldman Sachs. He recently told the Associated Press, “China is likely to be the largest economy in the world and a tough-minded geopolitical power equal to any other geopolitical power on the globe.” So the business execs can’t say they don’t know what they’re doing. Menges is right, they just don’t care.
It is the duty of those in government, however, to care about the trends that threatened to shift the balance of power in the world against the United States. They must be willing to act against the entrenched special interests who have decided they can profit from building China into the next Great Power. To do this in a democracy, U.S. government leaders need the active support of the American people. The work of patriots like Constantine Menges are vital to inform the views of both officials and voters. That is why the appearance of China: The Gathering Threat is so timely and important; and why Menges poured his last energies into completing this book before his death. Everyone should be concerned about the rise of a China still ruled by a communist-fascist dictatorship; and anyone so concerned should read Menges’ book, which lays out the situation in encyclopedic detail (the book runs 565 pages) while providing bold, but realistic, scenarios for meeting the threat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.