Russian and Chinese military reaching out

In summary, Chinese warships made their first call at an Iran port, while U.S. and Canadian jets intercepted eight Russian aircraft. This is not a new occurrence as similar events have happened in the past, with different countries engaging in surveillance and provocation tactics. However, the long-term implications of China and Russia potentially forming an alliance and challenging the West's power cannot be predicted. Additionally, it is uncertain if China will rely on Russian technology as they have a history of reverse engineering and stealing Western technology. The world may be headed for instability if China and Russia continue to counterbalance the West.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #38
Monsterboy said:
Russia proposes BRICS orbital station.
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/773536

I highly support such white elephant. Pity, that's only a dream.

Anyway there is such talk about BRICS, while Chinese-Indian relationship are rather cool. (Kashmir, Chinese-Pakistani alliance).
 
  • #39
I think the world is an interesting place right now.

Perhaps another way to look at the situation is not to assess capabilities, but to perhaps assess their psychology.

I understand that having the latest and greatest piece of tech can increase the effectiveness of a country's response, but perhaps the quality of their response is far more relevant.

As a people, the Russians and the Chinese have displayed specific behaviours over the course of their history, and history has a funny way of repeating itself.

There are many here who have seen several conflicts come and go.

It would be interesting to have their take on it.
 
  • #41
China to extend military reach, build lighthouses in disputed waters
http://news.yahoo.com/china-boost-offshore-military-capability-defense-strategy-paper-055523045.html

In a policy document issued by the State Council, the Communist-ruled country's cabinet, China vowed to increase its "open seas protection", switching from air defence to both offence and defence, and criticised neighbours who take "provocative actions" on its reefs and islands.

A U.S. State Department spokesman declined to make a specific comment on the Chinese strategy paper, but said Washington urged Beijing "to use its military capabilities in a manner that is conducive to maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region."
I wonder where this is going to lead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
nsaspook said:
China says the new sand islands will be used for humanitarian, environmental, fishing and other internationally-minded purposes.

Whew. Now we can all be comfortable about their intentions! [/s]
 
  • Like
Likes Czcibor
  • #47
mheslep said:
What possible use is intended for *mobile* artillery on a remote island? The military purpose of an island has long been to build an airstrip and position aircraft there.

Mainly to scare off local 'fishing' trawlers I would think.
 
  • #48
Pentagon chief criticizes Beijing's South China Sea moves
http://news.yahoo.com/us-says-china-artillery-vehicles-artificial-island-093552171--politics.html

US says "Stop", China says "Mind your own business".

Forbes contributor has a rather provocative take on the matter
http://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldk...-to-waters-and-u-s-warship-arrives-at-syubic/But - Impasse over China's island-building shows no sign of easing
http://news.yahoo.com/impasse-over-chinas-island-building-shows-no-sign-135002918--politics.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...from-return-of-american-sailors-10290332.html
The Philippines Senate, which had voted in 1991 against renewing the lease on US bases, has dropped its objection to the American return to waters threatened by China’s new insistence on its right to rule almost all the South China Sea – including the Spratly Islands claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.
 
  • #50
Loads of countries have made claims on uninhabited islands, and also for that matter disputes arise concerning islands which are inhabited,
What China is doing has plenty of historical precedent, and at least they are not claiming stuff outside of their own back yard,
 
  • #51
nsaspook said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...from-return-of-american-sailors-10290332.html

I have to admit I'm always impressed at how the anti-americanism disappears from various allied countries once a major threat comes barreling down on them.

rootone said:
Loads of countries have made claims on uninhabited islands, and also for that matter disputes arise concerning islands which are inhabited,
What China is doing has plenty of historical precedent, and at least they are not claiming stuff outside of their own back yard,

It's not about the islands that are inhabited, it's about the natural resources that are in the area. China is trying to bully it's smaller neighbors into allowing it to grab all of it for itself. And yes, China does have plenty of historical precedent, but mostly that's from what Germany was doing under it's Weltpolitik policy from the 1880's through to World War 1. During that time Germany provoked a number of crises, including most famously the Agadir Crisis, which were aimed at enhancing German prestige on the world scene. What it actually did was isolate Germany and make future wars much much harder to win. While these crises did not directly cause World War 1, they set the stage for it allowing that final crisis to touch off the powder keg in the summer of 1914.
 
  • #52
aquitaine said:
I have to admit I'm always impressed at how the anti-americanism disappears from various allied countries once a major threat comes barreling down on them.

I worked at both the Subic Bay base and Clark in the 80's. It shouldn't be too hard to get the Navy base up to speed in a few years to rebuild the 7th fleet forward base with a carrier and air squadron home-ported there. The base harbor looks to be in good shape.
USS Shilon in Subic June 1, 2015 .
18325036446_514729e433_c_d.jpg

18347460132_57b2f97e24_c_d.jpg
 
  • #53
rootone said:
Loads of countries have made claims on uninhabited islands, and also for that matter disputes arise concerning islands which are inhabited,
Except that this claim is backed up by much greater firepower?

What China is doing has plenty of historical precedent,
A challenge for you - which kind of international aggression does NOT have a plenty of historical precedent?
and at least they are not claiming stuff outside of their own back yard,

Have you looked on map? Or your definition of "backyard" actually extends to around 1700 km? (distance from Portugal to Scotland) Anyway why aggression against nearby countries should be morally superior to aggression against far away countries? (just curious)

Nine-dashed-line-South-China-Sea.jpg


Anyway, such nice policy tend to backfire:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/philippines-japan-military-bases-150605072014102.html
(Philippines are to allow refuelling for Japanese military)
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #54
Last edited:
  • #55
jim hardy said:
i know i have tendency to over-worry

but i am reminded of 1930's
when Germany built an arms industry and bunkered up around its neighbors
while England (and US) slept.

http://blogs.cfr.org/davidson/2015/05/27/five-takeaways-from-chinas-bold-new-military-strategy/

In 1940 Nazi Germany was spending 40% of national income on the military against the US 2%. Today, the US by itself has military spending as much as the next ~dozen countries combined, and 3-4 times that of China. US military spending combined with that of its major allies is 5-6 times that of China, who has no major allies. Claims are circulating that China intends a blue water Navy. Good luck with that. The US operates 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers with effectively unlimited range, compared to China's zero, and the US has enormous experience in operating and fighting carriers.

So me, I worry that military spending and the incurred debt is too high, with the correct amount of spending always given as "more" by the mouthpieces of the defense industry.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd, Astronuc and lisab
  • #56
Exposing Russia’s Secret Army in Syria
Some wear uniforms, some don’t, but from highway checkpoints to jet fighters, Russians are being spotted all over the Assad dictatorship’s heartland.
Russian military officers are now in Damascus and meeting regularly with Iranian and Syrian counterparts, according to a source with close contacts in the Bashar al-Assad regime.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/05/exposing-russia-s-secret-army-in-syria.html
 
  • #57
The Russians never left Syria so it's no secret they are there now.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #58
mheslep said:
In 1940 Nazi Germany was spending 40% of national income on the military against the US 2%. Today, the US by itself has military spending as much as the next ~dozen countries combined, and 3-4 times that of China. US military spending combined with that of its major allies is 5-6 times that of China, who has no major allies. Claims are circulating that China intends a blue water Navy. Good luck with that. The US operates 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers with effectively unlimited range, compared to China's zero, and the US has enormous experience in operating and fighting carriers.

So me, I worry that military spending and the incurred debt is too high, with the correct amount of spending always given as "more" by the mouthpieces of the defense industry.
According to the 2013 federal budget, defense spending is #3 on the list. #1 is for the Health & Human Services Dept. (which includes Medicare and Medicaid spending) and #2 is for the Social Security Administration. Spending for #1 and #2 accounts for almost half the budget:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

Spending on #1 and #2 is expected to grow significantly over the next few decades as older workers retire and fewer younger people are working and paying taxes. The effect of the ACA on spending for #1 has yet to be fully realized, but indications are that spending for #1 will increase even faster than otherwise anticipated due to this law. #3 can be cut somewhat, but cutting #1 and/or #2 is difficult, if not impossible, without a lot of members of congress losing their seats. Reforming #1 or #2 in order to delay the date when insolvency occurs is also just as difficult as making outright cuts.
 
  • #59
The US federal deficit was larger than the entire DoD spending in every year since 2009. In 2009 and 2011, the deficit was larger than the entire discretionary budget, and it came close in 2010. On the one hand, this illustrates how out of control spending is, but on the other, it shows that Defense is relatively protected.

The number of carrier battle groups was mentioned. With the ongoing decommissioning of the Nimitz here are presently nine.
  • CVN-69 (USS Eisenhower) - undergoing sea trials after leaving the yards
  • CVN-70 (USS Carl Vinson) - in the yards at San Diego
  • CVN-71 (USS Theodore Roosevelt) - Persian Gulf
  • CVN-72 (USS Abraham Lincoln) - In the yards for refueling
  • CVN-73 (IUSS George Washington) - in San Diego
  • CVN-74 (USS John C Stennis) - Eastern Pacific
  • CVN-75 (USS Harry Truman) - training off North Carolina
  • CVN-76 (USS Ronald Reagan) - Eastern Pacific
  • CVN-77 (USS George HW Bush) - in the yards
So, out of 9, 3 are forward deployed. This is not atypical - if you want to deploy 3 or 4 carriers, you need 10-12.
 
  • #60
mheslep said:
In 1940 Nazi Germany was spending 40% of national income on the military against the US 2%.
A fairer comparison might be 1942 or 1943 when US spending was 59% and 76% defense.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_1942USbn

upload_2015-9-6_11-48-28.png


upload_2015-9-6_11-45-21.png


I just started reading Eisenhower's memoir "Crusade in Europe" . The axis caught us asleep .

In 1940 Germany was already well into the war. United States was still largely isolationist, Roosevelt and a few others understood we'd soon have to build back up our military but that was politically unpopular before Pearl Harbor..
Joe Kennedy abandoned his isolationist stance and threw his support behind Roosevelt only shortly before the 1940 election.

Luckily we had a huge manufacturing base that could quickly transition from consumer goods to war materials. It was prodigious US manufacturing that defeated Japan and Germany.

Disclaimer : I'm not old enough to remember those events; just i did some research once for a short story so have some familiarity with the temper of that time...

old jim
 
  • #62
jim hardy said:
A fairer comparison might be 1942 or 1943 when US spending was 59% and 76% defense.
Not fairer based on the point you were making earlier, and to which I responded:
but i am reminded of 1930's when Germany built an arms industry and bunkered up around its neighbors while England (and US) slept.
The allies were not in WWII with Germany in the 1930s; similarly the US is in no war with a major power. Why should military spending, now, resemble that during the height of WWII, especially given the size of US military spending is already many multiples of the other world powers?
 
Last edited:
  • #63
jim hardy said:
But i cannot let go of that old Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared" .
Yes, a fine motto, if one takes the time to determine what prepared means in this context, and if not used instead as a euphemism for "Spend More". See again your first graph with US and other nations military spending. If this spending is insufficient US, then how many multiples of US plus its allies vs China military spending is sufficient.

More historical comparison. US defense spending per year in constant dollars. Spending at the height of the Reagan era defense build up was $537 billion (const dollars). This enabled a 600 ship US Navy during a cold war against the Soviet Union which had literally threatened to "bury" the US, still enslaved all of eastern Europe, and maintained dozens of divisions on the border ready to invade western Europe. Today, the Soviet Union is no more yet US defense spending hovers around 50% higher than the Reagan era.

http://goo.gl/C1AIT7

C1AIT7.png
 
Last edited:
  • #64
SteamKing said:
but cutting #1 and/or #2 is difficult, if not impossible,
Future Medicare increases will but cut. It is impossible for future Medicare to not be cut, since otherwise spending runs away from contributions. That is, benefits paid out are roughly three times contributions, varying with income class. This is the current reality of US entitlement spending: that which can not continue will not. The ACA already took over $700B out of future Medicare spending, though this point was hidden by budgeting subterfuges in the ACA debate. The point is that future Medicare can be cut politically even before the money runs out.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
mheslep said:
Why should military spending, now, resemble that during the height of WWII, especially given the size of US military spending is already many multiples of the other world powers?
I never suggested we go back to wartime levels.
It was you who compared a country aggressively at war to one asleep and struggling with a decade long economic depression.
Percentage-wise, US spends 3.5% GDP vs China's 2.1% GDP . source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

my point was we're cutting back the size of our military and decimating our manufacturing, in contrast to developing economies.

If we arrive at some balanced world equilibrium that's fine
and i don't like that US is the world's policeman

The world is not yet an idyllic peaceful valley. My rod and my staff they comfort me. That is, my capability for self defense comforts me.
I favor US retaining a military nobody else wants to tangle with
but keeping it home.

Too many dominant males in high places playing "Grand Chessboard" is what's wrong with the world.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd
  • #66
jim hardy said:
Percentage-wise, US spends 3.5% GDP vs China's 2.1% GDP
Why do you consider the percentage of GDP the relevant figure, instead of the absolute money spent on guns and ammo? I'm also concerned about the reduction in troop count and ship count, but this is not because of any sharp reduction in spending. Rather, the efficiency of spending in the defense budget is the issue. The explosion of civilians on the DoD payroll is an example. Military spending needs reform, not increase, and there will be enormous lobbying effort to resist that reform.
 
  • #67
mheslep said:
the Soviet Union which had literally threatened to "bury" the US,

wow was that Kruschev mis-translation hyped for decades.

From his memoirs, his intent was Communism would outlive Capitalism and they'd figuratively be in attendance at our funeral..Anyhow,
mheslep said:
If this spending is insufficient US, then how many multiples of US plus its allies vs China military spending is sufficient.
Extrapolate graphs forward a decade and adjust now for parity then.
 
  • #68
jim hardy said:
decimating our manufacturing
US manufacturing employment has been decimated. US manufacturing output has generally been increasing.

mfg1.jpg
 
  • #69
mheslep said:
Rather, the efficiency of spending in the defense budget is the issue. The explosion of civilians on the DoD payroll is an example. Military spending needs reform,

yes i agree with that, we failed to heed Ike's caution about the military-industrial complex.

mheslep said:
Why do you consider the percentage of GDP the relevant figure, instead of the absolute money spent on guns and ammo?
Because I'm an old automatic controls guy. In automatic controls one looks both looks forward and backward to see from whence things came and where they're headed, and applies corrections. That's cybernetics.
The 2nd graph show's China's GDP should equal ours soon enough, and when it does absolute dollars will be the same as percentages.
Thereafter they'll be able to outspend us with ease.
 
  • #70
If last year i made a million boxes of Girl Scout Cookies
each containing a dozen cookies
and sold them for $4 a box;

and this year i make a million boxes of Girl Scout Cookies
each containing ten cookies
and sell them for $5 a box

only BLS would call that 16% decrease from 12 million to 10 million cookies
a 25% increase..

Well, it's not that bad
or is it?

OOPS edit i see the label of year 2000 dollars. Will take a look.
 

Similar threads

News US, Japan eye China after ships barred
    • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
News What is the impact of Russia and China's growing influence in Latin America?
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
5K
ECONOMICS: It's stupid to be afraid (Lee Kuan Yew to Der Spiegel)
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON
    • General Discussion
4
Replies
109
Views
54K
News ROFLMAO happy new year from bill blum
    • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT SHOWS BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
    • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
6K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
    • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 242)
    • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top