- #71
HomogenousCow
- 737
- 213
It seems that arguing on in the internet with strangers is a past time for all ages.
HomogenousCow said:It seems that arguing on in the internet with strangers is a past time for all ages.
jim hardy said:over and out on this topic
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.
HomogenousCow said:To be fair though, we're (I'm Chinese) producing a lot of steel and alumina because we're using it. Developed countries don't need that much because most of their infrastructure is fine as it is. There is an insane amount of construction in China.
jim hardy said:And i understand that there's alumina in high strength concrete...
The 1950's and 60's mentioned by Hornbein were my formative years. Insanity of the cold war era was pointed out very well in movies like Dr Strangelove and The Mouse That Roared..
Eisenhower said in his introduction to "Crusade in Europe" 'I think there is no fundamental difference between an average Russian citizen and an average American citizen..'
Indeed one of Ike's daughters married the son of Kruschev's KGB chief... (that's a difficult reference to find, i have it somewhere)
So i have for some thirty years now pondered this question, "Given that royal marriage , was the entire Cold War a hoax ? "
Czcibor said:North Korea (sure this one was supposed to be a buffer zone that outlived its useful potential),
Well, it does not work so well when its a hostile to all world, ultra nationalistic and militaristic country that forges even Chinese currency and is armed with nuclear warheads. Usefulness already went down around Nixon-Mao meeting in 1972. Now it is only a problem that China subsidies with annually equivalent of billions of dollars and not get much in return. (except of course teasing USA and South Korea, but it is still not good business)Hornbein said:It seems like a very useful buffer zone to me. Look at a map and see how close Korea is to Beijing. It was no accident that the Chinese waged war on the US/UN when that army approached the Chinese/Korean border.
Czcibor said:Well, it does not work so well when its a hostile to all world, ultra nationalistic and militaristic country that forges even Chinese currency and is armed with nuclear warheads. Usefulness already went down around Nixon-Mao meeting in 1972. Now it is only a problem that China subsidies with annually equivalent of billions of dollars and not get much in return. (except of course teasing USA and South Korea, but it is still not good business)
Hornbein said:If as you say North Korea gets billions annually from China, I would be inclined to doubt that North Korea is hostile or threatening toward China.
Surely those nuclear missiles increase its value as a buffer state, thus enhancing the security of China from potential attack by the West.
China's concern is a would be thriving pro western democracy sitting on its border, which the Korean peninsula well might become if the south absorbed the north ala west and east Germany. There's much a totalitarian state has to fear from such a scenario that does not include military action.Czcibor said:In spite of all my efforts, I really have problems to imagine millions of Western (with aid of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) soldiers marching on Beijing. Hypothetically I could imagine some limited war with air and naval skirmishes, where usefulness of North Korea would be tiny. Or a total war, but application of nuclear armed ICBMs would make any minor buffer state useless.
Existence of fully tolerated semi-democratic Hong-Kong a bit damages your argument. Actually it may be a bit more problematic, because local population uses Cantonese and is hard to classify them as some weird foreigners.mheslep said:China's concern is a would be thriving pro western democracy sitting on its border, which the Korean peninsula well might become if the south absorbed the north ala west and east Germany. There's much a totalitarian state has to fear from such a scenario that does not include military action.
Yes, it would seem so absent a closer look. Especially since the handover, HK can't take any action that would cause the Chinese problems as could a unified Korea. For instance, the playing of loudspeakers on the border stating the leadership is evil as South Korea does now, correctly, against the North. HK can't be a haven for dissidents, can't make claims in the S China sea, can't join in solidarity with western countries on issues of common ground (trade agreements, UN troop deployments).Czcibor said:Existence of fully tolerated semi-democratic Hong-Kong a bit damages your argument. Actually it may be a bit more problematic, because local population uses Cantonese and is hard to classify them as some weird foreigners.
1) Overstating direct activity, while ignoring indirect one. My country do not have any serious policy towards Ukraine and Belarus. However... Plenty of Ukrainians work in Poland. Same ethnic group, shared history and the language barrier is tiny... And one of ideas during the Maidan, was to turn Ukraine into something more or less similar to Poland. They've seen it and more or less liked it (except the immigration service who was trying to hunt them ;) ), no special advertisement was needed.mheslep said:Yes, it would seem so absent a closer look. Especially since the handover, HK can't take any action that would cause the Chinese problems as could a unified Korea. For instance, the playing of loudspeakers on the border stating the leadership is evil as South Korea does now, correctly, against the North. HK can't be a haven for dissidents, can't make claims in the S China sea, can't join in solidarity with western countries on issues of common ground (trade agreements, UN troop deployments).
HK may have elections, but it is now subject to all the same net censorship and police action as the rest of China.
Both Moscow and Washington say their enemy is Islamic State, whose Islamist fighters control large parts of Syria and Iraq. But Russia supports the government of Assad in Syria, while the United States says his presence makes the situation worse.
Tiananmen Square massacre occurred in '89, while Honk Kong was still under British rule, making my point about why Chinese would not want a pro-western soverrign state on its border. Hong Kong was turned over to the Chinese in '97.Czcibor said:actually big part of leaders of Tienanmen protest were smuggled through HK.
The question was not one of effectiveness, but how much of an irritant the action proved to be against totalitarian North, which caused them to direct artillery fire in response.Honestly speaking I doubt effectiveness of loudspeakers against NK...
Astronuc said:Russia tells Washington: talk to us over Syria or risk 'unintended incidents'
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-s...yria-avoid-incidents-100728012--business.html
Not that they have much choice in the matter - it seems.Belarus has made clear it would not welcome a Russian base, but the former Soviet republic remains dependent on Moscow for credit and energy.
If you read history you find that heads of state always talk tough in public and negotiate in secret.jim hardy said:i read that article and it made me ask "Who's being the knot-heads in that exchange ? If two parties are flying warplanes around the same playground i sure want them talking to one another. ":
i lived in Miami in October 1962Hornbein said:If you read history
"The Russian diplomatic strategy is to be taken into account by the United States, basically," Dmitri Trenin, head of the Carnegie Endowment's Moscow office, said in a conference call with reporters. "Russia is creating facts on the ground. Russia is not asking for permission to be in Syria, or to be doing things it's doing in Syria, and that creates a position from which the Russians think they can get ... some kind of an understanding with the United States."
Worked in Afghanistan right?jim hardy said:Seems to me US ought to pitch in and help Putin help Assad stomp Isis to death.
Greg Bernhardt said:Worked in Afghanistan right?
80s when Russia had to withdrawnsaspook said:Which war? The 80's when we opposed Russia in Afghanistan or later after 9/11?
Greg Bernhardt said:Worked in Afghanistan right?
Greg Bernhardt said:80s when Russia had to withdraw
Back to the future:Just days before Xi’s trip to Washington, a Chinese fighter jet flew in front of a U.S. RC-135 reconnaissance plane east of the Shandong Peninsula in the Yellow Sea. And in August 2014, a Chinese J-11 fighter jet passed within 20 feet of a U.S. P-8 Poseidon aircraft, performing a barrel roll in a maneuver the Pentagon condemned as reckless.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is monitoring a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, reported that its monitors had seen a mobile TOS-1 'Buratino' weapons system for the first time.
The Buratino is equipped with thermobaric warheads which spread a flammable liquid around a target and then ignite it. It can destroy several city blocks in one strike and cause indiscriminate damage.
nsaspook said:Russia had to withdraw then because we invested billions in proxy warriors and weapons to drag them into a 'Vietnam' that many believe (and I agree) started the end of the Cold War. I would hope our relationship with the Taliban then has taught us a lesson
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118751/how-israel-palestine-peace-deal-diedKerry pressed on: “When I fought in Vietnam, I used to look at the faces of the local population and the looks they gave us. I’ll never forget it. It gave me clarity that we saw the situation in completely different ways.”
“This isn’t Vietnam!” Netanyahu shouted.
Just another slow tracked target for an air force with air superiority and smart weapons.nsaspook said:A very nasty weapon.
...