Re: AMERICA

Claude V. Lucas wrote:
In article <GRPMf.1267$kp3.1093@fed1read03>,
My Name <"Email Address"@mvm.edu> wrote:

Claude V. Lucas wrote:


In article <3qPMf.1263$kp3.690@fed1read03>,
My Name <"Email Address"@mvm.edu> wrote:


Claude V. Lucas wrote:


In article <ZhNMf.1257$kp3.534@fed1read03>,
My Name <"Email Address"@mvm.edu> wrote:



Claude V. Lucas wrote:



In article <3EMMf.1251$kp3.600@fed1read03>,
My Name <"Email Address"@mvm.edu> wrote:




King Kock wrote:




"Neocon Nerve GAS" <mr._mulay@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Iv8Mf.2561$p43.824@xxxxxxxxxxxxx





I could not agree more emphatically with the points you made here KK.
Excellent post.


Thank you.






I'm reminded of Hitler's response to his Generals when warned against
Operation Barberossa (invasion of the USSR). He responded, "the whole structure is rotten. One good kick and it will cave in". Had the USA
not been there for Stalin w/ a massive "lend-lease" program, and had
Hitler _any_ historic military sense whatsoever (Napolean and the Russian Winter withdraw inwards strategy), the USSR might've indeed, collapsed under the German Blitzkrieg.

There are _so_ many elements rotting in today's America. As I've stated
so many times before, I have to wonder if the Chinese PLA, --tomorrow's
peerless super power-- isn't looking at the USA with the exact same
miscalculation Hitler had in mind...

http://www.spark-online.com/issue20/mulay.html


Not sure whether China has an interest in invading, but they will certainly be in a position to deliver the "good kick" if they want in years to come. Taiwan is an obvious flashpoint. It's only a matter of time before it goes the way of Hong Kong.

- KK




Oh clearly they've no interest in ever invading! What they _want_ however, is freedom from the U.S. where trade control of everything from Thailand to Korea is is concerned. They want the Japanese to participate vs. hide under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. They want american interests as far away from the South China Sea as possible. The flashpoint is Taiwan.

America's current agreement to massively arm and protect an island which she simultaneously maintains to be Chinese, just wont stand the test of time. China is enroute to becoming the largest, most prosperous and ultimately, militarily powerful nation.


My uninformed guess is that everybody will find a way to do business.

It's tough for anybody to make a buck or a yuan while blowing each other up.


Claude

Once China develops a self-sustaining middle class able to replace the USA in the product-consumption dept. She won't be as concerned about
America as buyer. Additionally, that entire half of the world provides
an intensely population dense market for China. The danger is that too
many Americans are complacent in over rating America's 'permanent'
value to China from an economic perspective.


True, but I wonder if they would throw away such a large trading
partner for the sake of, what? What would be the gain for them?

I don't think that ideology is much of a driving factor in China
anymore although I could be wrong.




There's an old saying;

"Lady fortune wearies of carrying anyone on her shoulders for too long".


True as well. There's one from The Art of War that goes something to
the effect of "Don't enter into a battle that you cannot win."




Luck runs out. America has had an INCREDIBLE run. So much so, most of us
came to believe that we're immune from the pigsty horrors of SO many
toilets which comprise the non U.S. world.

As it stands, the Chinese are growing at a clip not seen since America entered the Industrial Age. They're waiting for the right moment. I merely maintain that the Flashpoint for a potential WWIII is Taiwan.


It's certainly possible, but again I'd guess that both sides
would rather do business than blow each other up. It wouldn't
surprise me much to learn Taiwan has a stash of grey painted W88s.

Also, it's getting close to the point where the leaders of both places
have no memory of things being other than the way they are, politically.

Other than ego-tripping on a national scale, where is the value
added in a conflict?




Further, China has built her military into caves under mountains. America's is out in the wide open spaces and has been since Cavalry days.

The balance of military power rests with ONE deadly force;

Stealthy ICBM bearing nuclear submarines. Both nations have them.


Yeah, but as far as I know, we're driving Ferrari's and the Chinese
'59 Fords... I have no inside knowledge, but I'd be *really* surprised
if the Chinese had anything within 20 years of the USS Los Angeles class.

It also would be surprising if the US didn't have a newer class in
service or close that us peons don't know about.

Also, the Chinese don't have a 509th Bomb Wing equivalent that I know of.




We saw what 9/11/01 has done to U.S. nerves, business excuses for sudden non-performance at the time, etc. China operates differently from
both a centralized and (by then) 2,000,000,000 pop. standpoint.


Also true, but what if a few of the 150 million Chinese Muslims decided
to fly an Air China 767 into a building in Shanghai? Things can change quickly these days. The Chinese are as much infidels to the Islamicists
as we are, if not more so.





If the Chinese were to systematically dump their massive holdings of
U.S. dept on the world...it'd be an economic cataclysm. EVEN if the U.S. and China had an _extremely_limited_ nuclear exchange, they'd shrug it off and America would go into a business tailspin that'd make the dust bowl days look like a recession (again, see 9/11/01). The mere fact that
another nation state did that would viciously undermine the U.S. Dollar
and confidence in her Debt Instruments, -forever.


It would, but what would be the purpose and the payoff to the Chinese?
What would be left for them to dominate, even presuming a nuclear exchange
would be "limited"? Once the missiles started flying what would stop
the US from turning the populated areas of China into desolate wasteland?
We still have a significant advantage in warhead count and modern delivery
systems in spite of recent Chinese advances.




My solution?

I think we ought to back out of Nixon Era agreements to defend Taiwan
-before ultimately we're embarrassed into doing so the way all the old Colonial powers were, in giving up their territories. The cost isn't
worth the price, otherwise.


It's reasonably certain that the Taiwanese have the ability to defend
themselves from the Mainlanders, at least to the point of making an
attempted takeover cost more than it would be worth. My guess is that
as time goes on there will be more of an attempt to increase commerce
and less belligerent rhetoric, especially as younger people with no
personal memories of the past conflict assume power in both places.

Far be it from me to attempt to predict the future, but in the past
war has usually been driven by greed, and in this case greed probably
would be better served by cooperation. Of course, my theory goes out
the window if the hard-core idealogues take control anywhere.

Claude

For a perfectly suitable reference standard, all you need do is
check out that insanely stupid Falklands / Malvinas bit the UK
got into.


That one was a large scale national ego driven spat with
no commercial interests at stake.

You've proven my point. *IF* you look at Taiwan -1949, the Nationalist Chiang Kai Sheck (sp.)Government fleeing there upon Communist Revolution, the (Nixon / Henry K.) U.S. re-do of recognizing Beijing
and de-recognizing Taipei (early 70's), then you'll see the
"ego driven spat" aspects. To add insult to injury, this one even
HAS commercial interests at stake.


It's 2006, not 1949. Pretty much everyone who was around then
is in the ground or in a rocker...

The sound of today is the cash register ringing, not
the bombs bursting in air.


The Argentine Govt needed
a distraction from severe economic difficulties at the time
so they picked a fight with the Anglos.

Taiwan/Beijing is not comparable unless the idealogues regain control on the mainland and their economic boom fizzles.

The ideologues never LOST control. The Chinese mainland has matured to economically surpass Taiwan.


Taiwan would put up a fight and go down in flames. China would
be pleased either way.


A stash of 25 or 30 W88s is an effective equalizer.

Something like that is probably why the mainlanders never
tried to "reunite" back when the real commies were in charge.

I think you're WAY off base assuming the PLA isn't staunchly
Communist and merely using the PRC's forray into Capitalism
to VASTLY $$$ modernize the Chinese Military.


I saw something the other day on the toob where the same person
who is the Minister of Propaganda in the Chinese Govt is also in
charge of the companies that are producing most if not all of
the income that is flowing into the PRC. The generals are driving
Lexus and Benz. A lot of the money flowing into the PRC is passing
thru into Switzerland and there is no interest is screwing up a good thing by actually starting a war.

Claude, you're clear on the difference between the PRC and the PLA
in China aren't you? You've made this point over and over, however
I don't see forward thinking vision in your point (basically,
don't kill the Golden Goose), I see past and present. My point is
directly pointed at the future; From China's perspective, yesterday
and todays Golden Goose could well appear to be tomorrow's Rusty
Bird.

You certainly *could* be right, but I'm trying to understand who would benefit.

Having established the above- the answer is this;

CHINA would benefit by clearly dominating the entire ASEAN Co-prosperity
sphere, removing the U.S. from the picture. China would assume hugely
greater regional and world stature by removing the world's super power
as an agent of their containment.

The rulers of the PRC would lose much if events lead to open conflict
and things getting
blown up.

As I've continually pointed out, they're in FAR better a position to sustain damage than we are. It's ALL in caves and beneath mountain ranges. It was the same in Vietnam and it's the same in N. Korea.
Did I mention Afghanistan?...the USA is at the top. The bigger they are
and the higher up they are, the harder they fall. 9/11/01 showed that
in a comparitively micro-sense from a business productivity standpoint.
IF the US were to be shown to be vulnerable, the world would RUN- for
non-dallar denominated currency AND debt. The effect upon the American economy would be cataclysmic even with a tiny 'lil nuke exchange- Say,
they incinerate Okinawa or even Camp Pendleton (N. of San Diego).

The Chinese don't seem to be driven by hatred and religion or ideology the way that the Islamicists seem to be.

I think you're VASTLY underestimating national pride and a desire
to replace the United States as a global superpower. They are a
star awaiting to ignite and provide prosperity to a population
MANY multiples the size of the USA.



They just seem to want to fill up the wallet,

With every consecutive year of huge GDP growth, they've allocated an even larger % to their military (PLA).

and I can't see how that can happen if most of the world is dead and the rest is glowing.
I could be wrong. I'm just looking for a motivation.

It's NO different than that of the U.S. code-colonialist / crusader /
evangilist "Freedom is on the March" spread of Capitalism bit. Question is WHO'S capitalism...?

I can't see the current Chinese rulers blowing up the world

Niether can I...Nonetheless, THEY aren't on top, we are. Thus, we have FAR further to fall and more to lose by even the global psychology of a mere limited military exchange. The worlds govts., banks, ins. companies,endowments,trusts, pension funds would bolt in a heart beat.
There IS no "Gold Standard"...it's all backed by faith (in the whatever's deemed the "safest" nation state).

because Chiang told Mao to *** off 60 years ago...

Actually, since it was Chiang who had to run for his life to Taiwan from Mao, I'd say you got that one backwards!

None of the current bunch was around for it.

Was any of the U.S. 'current bunch' around for the writing of the U.S. Constitution?!...Yet where do we stand on defense of the principles
set forth in it?

Maybe they *are* stupid enough to think that they can conquer the entire planet, but I doubt it.

Well define "conquer". Evidently, the U.S. Government *is* hell bent on being "stupid enough" to do just EXACTLY that with the entire U.S. code-colonialist / crusader / evangilist "Freedom is on the March" spread of Capitalism bit. Al Queda _EXISTS_ as a resistance force
against this and fired a shot over the U.S. bow on 9/11/01. The
Chinese wish to "conquer their own corner of the ASEAN co-prosperity
sphere with no "containment" interference from the USA. As to the
"entire planet", first comes your own back yard...

They already have 1.5 billion people that they barely feed.

How much do you REALLY know about how far they've come? That country
is developing faster than I think you REALIZE! Their goal IS to
develop WAY past where they ARE let alone the where they've been
you may be referring to. Time has been marching ON.

Why would they want to have to deal with the other 4.5 bil? It's just a headache that would stand in the way of
accumulating wealth.

Thailand? Vietnam? the Phillipines? Multiple S. American nations?
Labor is even CHEAPER in some of these places than within China!
WHAT headache?! One man's headache sounds like another man's
cheap labor force and long-term purchasing entity...


Claude
practices in

?!
.