|
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I don't get why everyone is always yapping about repairing global relations, especially in how it relates to Iraq. It is just so naive to assume that every other country was taking some moral high road in being against the invasion, when the reality is plain and simple, they would enhance their own power at the expensive of our own.
|
Working only for more power is ultimately self defeating. Globalization brings with it a price of what I call natioanl maturity. There has to be a general realization that we are now truely and completly interdependent. What happens to one country effects all countries. Invading Iraq didn't just muck up the Middle East. It has shown other countries that vast unilateral military action is the new tool of the "global free market econemy". This is going to show China, voted most likely to succede in their yearbook, that they can throw around their military in order to seize natural resources. THIS HURTS THE US. We obviously will not always be the top dog in the world, and since we kno that eventually we will need to bow to other superpowers, it's best to set an example that would benifit us in the long run. WHat if, 15 years down the line, China invades the Middle East and takes all the oil we're now spending hundreds of billions on. We will not get our monitary or military investment back in 15 years. So in this situation we've lost the money, the troops, and the resource. Why? Because we were greedy and let our reach excede our grasp. So even if you believe in US interests only this is a bad idea.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I agree the current state of economics might not be as favorable as it has been in recent years, but China is no where near our equal economically, and they are still not close militarily. If Taiwan declared it's independence tomorrow and China made a move we would lay them to shreds as they have no lift capabilities and the 7th fleet would bury them. Our presence in Iraq curtails their growth or at the very least regulates, as such it is an asset to us; at the same time it does the same for Western Europe/and other Asian countries, therefore it's beneficial.
|
Ah but we're not talking about right this second. Foresight is always lacking in militarism. China has multiple agreements with Russia (or whatever it's called this week), which supplies them plenty of oil. China's expectation of growing future dependence on oil imports has brought it to acquire interests in exploration and production in places like Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. Despite its efforts to diversify its sources, China has become increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. Today, 58% of China's oil imports come from the region. We don';t have ANY contol over that percentage. We invade Iraq, and China gets MORE oil from the Middle East. By 2015, the share of Middle East oil will stand on 70%. Oh, BTW, did you know that China is a massive arms dealer? All they need to do isto continue providing weapons of mass destruction to Iran and the Sudan. They recently sold anti-ship cruise missles to Iran. Where we (the US) invade and conqour, China arms and makes deals. To ignore the obvious implications of that to international relations is to ignore the reason why China is such a threat to the US, particularly in the Middle East. Also, don't asssume that China is so militarily inferior to the US.
1) Nukes:
Quote:
China currently maintains a minimal intercontinental nuclear deterrent using land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The Dong Feng-5 (DF-5) liquid-fueled missile, first deployed in 1981, has a range of 13,000 km and carries a single multi-megaton warhead. Twenty are believed to be deployed in central China, southwest of Beijing. Unlike China's earlier ballistic missiles, which were stored in caves and moved out for launch, the DF-5 can be launched directly from vertical silos—but only after a two-hour fueling process. In order to increase the survivability of the DF-5s, dummy silos are placed near the real silos. The DF-5's range gives it coverage of all of Asia and Europe, and most of the United States. The south-eastern US states are at the edge of the missile's range.
Two additional long-range ballistic missiles are in the development stage, the 8,000 km DF-31 and the 12,000 km DF-41. Both missiles are expected to be solid-fueled and based on mobile launchers. It is not known how many missiles China plans to deploy nor how many warheads the missiles may carry, but it is believed that China is hoping to deploy multiple nuclear warheads and penetration aids. These may be either multiple re-entry vehicles (MRVs) or the more capable, but technically difficult multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). First deployment for the DF-31 could occur before 2005; the DF-41 is likely to follow, possibly around 2010.2
China's nuclear-armed naval forces are currently limited to one Xia Type 092 nuclear-powered and nuclear ballistic missile-equipped submarine (SSBN), which has a history of reactor and acoustic problems. The Xia can carry 12 Ju Lang-1 (JL-1) SLBMs with a single 200-300 kt warhead and a range of 1,700 km. Due to its technical limits, the Type 092 is never deployed outside regional waters.
China is reported to be planning to build four-to-six new Type 094 SSBNs. The Type 094 will introduce a safer, quieter reactor and better overall performance. It is expected to have 16 JL-2 missiles, capable of carrying up to six warheads per missile (probably MRVs that are not independently targetable). The initial launch date is supposed to be scheduled for 2002; but development of the JL-2 missile may take considerably longer because to date the land-based missile on which it based, the DF-31, has been test launched only once. If China were to employ a deployment rotation similar to that for US Navy SSBNs (three submarines for each one in target range, with one on station, one in transit, and one in refit), then six SSBNs would give China the ability to keep two submarines on station in the Pacific at all times, able to strike all of Asia, Europe, and North America.3 If the planned 6 submarines are built with the maximum number of warheads per missile, the number of total deployable submarine-based nuclear warheads will rise to 576. Even if the warheads were not independently targetable, the minimum number likely to be on station and capable of striking the United States would be 192—that is, enough to saturate the proposed light US national missile defense, which is now driving the Chinese strategic nuclear modernization and expansion program.
China also deploys three weapons in the intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) and medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) categories. These missiles are capable of posing strategic threats to countries in Asia, such as India or Japan, but represent a lesser threat to Russia, and are only a threat to the United States through the vulnerability of US military bases in Japan and South Korea.
The oldest nuclear missile deployed by China is the semi-mobile 2,800 km-range DF-3A. The estimated 40 liquid-fueled DF-3s still in service today are being phased out in favor of the DF-15 (see below) and DF-21. They were followed by the liquid-fueled DF-4, which has a maximum range of 4,750 km. About 20 DF-4s remain in service in fixed launch sights. Chinese regional ballistic missile capabilities advanced greatly with the introduction of the DF-21, the first solid-fueled medium-range missile. The solid-fuel design provides China with a faster launch time, because the lengthy and potentially dangerous fueling procedure of the earlier Dong Feng models has been eliminated. First deployed in 1986, the 48 operational DF-21s have a range of 1,800 km and are carried on mobile launchers. The DF-21 is the basis for the JL-1 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM).
The older liquid-fuel missiles carry single warheads with yields estimated at 3.3 MT. The newer solid-fuel missiles have single warheads with maximum yields of a few hundred kilotons each.
The Chinese bomber force is based on locally produced versions of Soviet aircraft first deployed in the 1950s. With the retirement of the H-5/Il-28 from the nuclear role, the H-6/Tu-16 remains the only nuclear-capable bomber in the Chinese inventory. First entering service with the Soviet Air Force in 1955, the Tu-16 was produced in China in the 1960s. The H-6/Tu-16 is capable of carrying one-to-three nuclear bombs over a combat radius of 1,800 km to 3,100 km. About 120 People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) H-6/Tu-16s are believed to be capable of nuclear missions. Another 20 H-6/Tu-16s are under the control of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and do not perform nuclear missions. There is no indication of a replacement for the H-6/Tu-16 in the near future. The J-7/MiG-21 and the newer Chinese-designed JH-7s and Russian-exported Su-27s are capable of performing nuclear missions, but they are not believed to be deployed in that role.
The PLAAF has 20-40 Q-5 Fantan attack aircraft that it uses in the nuclear role. Initially deployed in China in 1970, the Q-5 is a substantially upgraded version of the MiG-19, which was initially deployed in the Soviet Union in 1954 and later produced by China under the designation J-6. The Q-5 can carry a single free-fall nuclear bomb over a combat radius of 400 km. The very short range of the Q-5 limits its battlefield effectiveness, even with conventional armament.
Two types of short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) entered service with China’s Second Artillery forces around 1995: the DF-11/M-11, with a range of 300 km, and the DF-15/M-9, with a range of 600 km. (The ‘DF’ designation is used by missiles in service with China, while the ‘M’ designation is used for export versions.). In theory both missiles but could be fitted with small nuclear devices. As of 2000, a few hundred DF-15s and DF-11s may be deployed; but most if not all are believe to be equipped with conventional warheads.
|
2)Conventional Forces:
Quote:
|
The People's Liberation Army Air Force, PLAAF, currently possesses about 4,350 aircraft, of which the majority are combat aircraft. IDDS estimates that the inventory of Chinese combat aircraft on 1 January 2000 includes the following: 1900 J-6/MiG-19 (all roles and models: fighter, reconnaissance, trainer); 720 J-7/MiG-21 (all roles and models: fighter, reconnaissance, trainer); 222 J-8I/II/III; 55 J-11/Su-27SK; 440 Q-5 (modified MiG-19); 307 H-5/Il-28; and 142 H-6/Tu-16. 8 Small numbers of JH-7s (fewer than 12) and K-8s (10-15) may also be in service. Of these aircraft, the great majority (J-6 and J-7) are of types which began to be deployed before 1972 (See Chart 2.) With the exception of 10 Il-76s, the airlift capabilities of the Chinese Airforce are limited to old Soviet tactical airlift planes built under license or reversed-engineered in China, such as the Y-5/An-2, Y-7/An-24, and Y-8/An-12.
|
China just increaset military spending by 14%...and they are not spending it on Iraq.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
How are we fucking our allies? By doing something in our own interests? In that sense helping our allies hurts ourselves, that is a big nono, never lend to anothers power at your own expense. The analogy isn't about fucking people, it's just noting the reality that sometime, some place down the line, military action will be required. It is a necessity, and as a basis of government one of its sole purposes.
|
Military bases in the US = defensive. Military bases around the world = offensive. Militaries are NEVER supposed to be used offinsively. We have the technology to launch a military strike on anywhere in the world from US shores in under 12 hours (I don't have a link for this one, I asked my uncle who works in intelligence). The only reason to have military spread around the globe is a show of power and intimidation. Do you really want to be the school yard bully?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Evil is not a subjective term, I know some hear might like to think so. Decapitating civilians is evil, Flying civilians planes into civilian targets is evil, lynching christians in response to cartoons is evil, inciting civil war to forward a facist agenda is evil; again Seditious doctrine.
|
Hahahahahah!!! Awesome. Do you really want to get in an evil-off? Do you really want me to list all the evil things the US has done in the past 50 years?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Also I have to ask, how in the hell do you figure OBL is not responsible for 9/11? Either as the predominant and widely accepted fact that he was the mastermind, at the very least he facilitated it. Please indulge me.
|
You're more than welcome to join the ongoing discussion in Paranoia about 9/11. I would appreciate your input on my math in post #166, or my chemistry and physics in post #171. |