South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Ken White]

Geography is a tough thing and the configuration of the world can't be changed.

True. It's noteworthy that no one else has been able come anywhere close to our ability to use that to an advantage. No one, though the Chinese are working on that. I doubt they will succeed in your lifetime. No other nation will be able to afford to try, barring a European Union -- also unlikely in your lifetime.

We very well may get over the embarrassment, it is hard to embarrass somebody with no shame...

Again, let me remind you that nations are not people; they don't get embarrassed or get shamed -- only some of the people within the nation may be embarrassed. That, as is said, is their problem...

.. but that hole in the barrier of islands won't be so easy to overcome. Politics, internal, external, our or theirs, the map won't look so good for the USN hence the Japanese and everybody else.

I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era.

Be careful with the pundits and think tanks, most of them are 30-40 years behind the times strategically and operationally. All of them must have and / or see crises to survive.

As an additional surprise for you, I think you are wrong also when you say this about Red China "they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys."...Totalitarian police states have proven to be mostly quite poor at figuring the best long term course of action. Maybe the ChiComs will be different, I would guess not.

I suggest that most nations, even the very democratic ones and certainly including the US and most of the rest of the so-called western world have problems determining the best long term courses of action. As Niels Bohr said "Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future." Actually, that's probably an old Confucian adage -- from China. Errors by the Chinese because they are communist and a totalitarian state aren't really the potential problem; that they are Chinese and have some very significant problems of their own which are not attributable to their governance and which they try to conceal from outsiders are the factors that will force them to a pragmatic solution and because they are totalitarian at this time, everyone in the country will at least on the surface support what is done. If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian fairly rapidly, that won't change my prediction about the possible future -- but it hamstrings yours.

OTOH and regrettably, our politicians have shown a complete willingness to disregard obvious consequences for short term political gain and our electorate is too fragmented to force the issue. That's true today. A couple of years may make a difference but I'm skeptical. As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

[carl]

Again, let me remind you that nations are not people; they don't get embarrassed or get shamed -- only some of the people within the nation may be embarrassed. That, as is said, is their problem...

You said "We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people... ". From the context it seems you meant the US overcoming embarrassment but now you say the nation does not but some in the nation do. I get it now...no, I don't.

I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era.

Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land. They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too. And also, boats can't go through land. They get stuck. So yes, despite the revolution in military affairs, effects based operations, network centric warfare, drones that can do anything at any time, despite all that, I still think land bases and islands are as useful to navies and naval power as they ever were.

Be careful with the pundits and think tanks, most of them are 30-40 years behind the times strategically and operationally. All of them must have and / or see crises to survive.

I don't need pundits to tell me that island bases are vital. The various history books I read superficially make that clear.

Errors by the Chinese because they are communist and a totalitarian state aren't really the potential problem; that they are Chinese and have some very significant problems of their own which are not attributable to their governance and which they try to conceal from outsiders are the factors that will force them to a pragmatic solution and because they are totalitarian at this time, everyone in the country will at least on the surface support what is done.

Everybody had better support them, or they will hear that midnight knock. We will have to disagree again. I think that they are ruled by ChiComs has as much or more to do with problems faced by the Chinese as does their Chineseness. After all, the ChiComs primary goal is they keep running the joint. They have never been coy about that. That would tend to skew things, since for example, there isn't much voting going on.

If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian fairly rapidly, that won't change my prediction about the possible future -- but it hamstrings yours.

Now that is some rhetorical technique. Just argue that the world is going to go the way you say, fairly rapidly, and when it does boy will the ground be cut out from under me.

As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

A totalitarian police state that is faced with immense internal problems has a system that prizes international stability, this is Red China. I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree. And given that they are building a big navy, talking tough and bumping into other people's boats, I'd say they are not really that high on stability.

[Ray]

All the public statements on the exercise stress that it has nothing to do with the recent incidents and is not directed at any country.

Actions indicate issues that words tend to avoid.

Sloppy journalism overall.

Indeed. Journalism is sloppy the world over.

International journalism never speaks with one voice.

If it were one voice, the world would have been a better place.

[Dayuhan]

A totalitarian police state that is faced with immense internal problems has a system that prizes international stability, this is Red China. I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree. And given that they are building a big navy, talking tough and bumping into other people's boats, I'd say they are not really that high on stability.

That state also has certain characteristics...

It is completely dependent on external trade, both commodity imports and merchandise exports, for its economic survival.

It needs continuous economic growth to keep its populace in order, a populace with rising expectations and a great deal of discontent.

It's doing quite well out of the status quo, and has a great deal to lose from disruption of the status quo.

Say what you will about the Chinese government; they are not irrational. They know how far they can push before the boat rocks, and there's little indication of any intent to push beyond that point.

Actions indicate issues that words tend to avoid.

Taking actions out of context may indicate issues that the context doesn't support. It would be easy to conclude that a Philippine-American military exercise at a time when there's tension with China might be seen as a specific response to that tension... until you recall that the exercise is an annual ritual that's gone on for decades. The exercise would still be going on if there was no tension, and would likely be seen as a message to those who are considering support to Islamic militants.

Indeed. Journalism is sloppy the world over.

International journalism never speaks with one voice.

If it were one voice, the world would have been a better place.

Sloppy journalism is obnoxious, but unanimous journalism would be very scary indeed. The world speaks with many voices, and most of them deserve a listen, if only to know what they're saying. World journalism needs to reflect that.

[Dayuhan]

The US left Japan with no option but a military one when their oil supplies were severely curtailed. The US wanted that war with Japan as much as they needed Britain to be so damaged that her empire would collapse. So with Britain, Germany and Japan out of the way was open for the US.

Ain't revisionism grand...

I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to while I believe the Chinese version is 'death by a thousand cuts'. The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.

I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).

Anyone following China's domestic political and economic situation might suspect that it's China that may self-destruct first. Whether that makes China less dangerous or more remains to be seen.

The US prevailed over the Soviet Union largely by maintaining the status quo despite a rising temperature and the occasional cut until the rival's internal economic contradictions caught up with them. Some Americans got frantic and howled of doom when the communists prevailed in Indochina, Nicaragua, etc, but in the end the fundamental inutility of Communist economics brought the whole pile down from the inside (ok, oversimplified, but it's a paragraph).

Might that not work with China?

If not, what would you have the US do?

[Ray]

Taking actions out of context may indicate issues that the context doesn't support. It would be easy to conclude that a Philippine-American military exercise at a time when there's tension with China might be seen as a specific response to that tension... until you recall that the exercise is an annual ritual that's gone on for decades. The exercise would still be going on if there was no tension, and would likely be seen as a message to those who are considering support to Islamic militants.

One must also not ignore actions that occur and not put it in context of the issues happening around the world in general and of the area in particular.

The ideal example was Nehru's complacency and ignoring of actions happening in the Aksai Chin and not taking cognisance of the same or modernising the World War II Army. When 1962 happened, the good man sat stunned and impotent.

Indeed the US Philippines exercise could be a routine one. A little too routine, given that it occurred just a few months back. That apart, both the times (that and the current one), it gives the impression that they were occurring as reaction to the Chinese moves. Twice 'out of context'?

And why give any statement that may appear hostile to China? Unless there is a method in that madness.

The US does annual naval and other exercises with India and others. There is no aggressive statements and instead merely on 'interoperability' etc.

Sloppy journalism is obnoxious, but unanimous journalism would be very scary indeed. The world speaks with many voices, and most of them deserve a listen, if only to know what they're saying. World journalism needs to reflect that.

Journalism reports events that occur. If there is sloppy statesmanship, the journalistic effort will be equally sloppy.

[Dayuhan]

Indeed the US Philippines exercise could be a routine one. A little too routine, given that it occurred just a few months back. That apart, both the times (that and the current one), it gives the impression that they were occurring as reaction to the Chinese moves. Twice 'out of context'?

There are a bunch of annual exercises involving Philippine and US forces. Cobra Gold and CARAT are multilateral, involving forces from around SE Asia. Balikatan was traditionally bilateral, but this year included a multi-nation disaster response drill. Cobra Gold is usually held in and around Thailand, Balikatan in and around the Philippines. CARAT moves around SE Asia. PHIBLEX, typically involving Philippine Marines and amphibious operations), is biliateral, involving US and Philippine forces. There's also Balance Piston, annual event I think bilateral working with ground forces. That's from memory; there may be other scheduled ones. With that many going on, almost any brush with the Chinese is going to be close to one of them.

The current exercise is clearly not a response to the Scarborough Shoal incident. If you look here:

http://vfacom.ph/

You'll see that a full schedule for the exercise was publicly uploaded to the website on December 15, 2011. The description:

Balikatan 2012 is the 28th iteration of PH-US bilateral Exercise but it will be the first ever multilateral event wherein other countries will be involved in the Humanitarian Assistance Disaster Response (HA/DR) Exercise from April 16-27, 2012. Other participating countries are Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and South Korea. The scenario includes a response to a large scale natural disaster centered on the Metro Manila Area.

Aside from Disaster Response, Field Training Exercise (FTX) for Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) will be held in Crow Valley, Tarlac; Luzon Sea; Basa AB and Clark AFB, Pampanga; Fort Magsaysay Nueva Ecija; Metro Manila; West Philippine Sea; and Tagkawayan, Ulugan Bay, Rio Tuba, Inagawan, and El Nido, all of Palawan. The 12-day event will comprise simultaneous events involving air, land and sea operations. Big footprints will be in Fort Magsaysay (Army), Palawan (Navy and Marines), Clark (Air Force) and Crow Valley (mixed). Special Operations Forces (SOF) Exercises will be held in Zamboanga, Jolo, and Basilan.

Again, this was announced before the recent brushes involving the Chinese, so it is clearly not a response to those encounters. Note the 28th iteration: annually for 28 years. Pretty predictable.

Since these exercises are publicly announced months in advance, it is of course possible that the Chinese, for reasons of their own, are initiating encounters timed to coincide with the exercises.

And why give any statement that may appear hostile to China? Unless there is a method in that madness.

No statement was given that sounded hostile. If you read the releases and watched the TV coverage they bend over backwards to avoid sounding hostile. That clip was simply poor reporting, not the intent of the people giving the statement.

Journalism reports events that occur.

Of course, and the reporting is always accurate and unbiased. I've a lovely bridge in Brooklyn for sale at a most excellent price...

[Ray]

So Dayuhan, the Philippine and the US officer who gave the impression were daft!

They wanted to cause some serious confusion, right?l

any clarification or denials thereafter?

[Dayuhan]

So Dayuhan, the Philippine and the US officer who gave the impression were daft!

They wanted to cause some serious confusion, right?l

any clarification or denials thereafter?

The statement in question was not attributed to any US or Philippine officer, neither was it a quote, just an inept journalist's poorly worded summary.

You can look around and find plenty of official releases on the subject by the US and Philippine governments, don't think you'll find that verbiage in any of them.

[Ken White]

You said "We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people... ". From the context it seems you meant the US overcoming embarrassment but now you say the nation does not but some in the nation do. I get it now...no, I don't.

Let me put it this way. I haven't been embarrassed by anything the US has done in my lifetime. I could and have wished that some things had been done better but that's mostly from an effectiveness standpoint. You may or may not have been embarrassed, don't know -- but I do know some who've been embarrassed by US actions. Pity...

Regardless, the nation has not been embarrassed. As an expander, the word 'we' refers to persons, not things. A nation is not a person.

Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land.

Or you could become carrier qualified -- and don't bother with carrier killer ICBMS and / or cruise missiles. Unproven technology -- and unannounced technology (ours or theirs) are unknowns.

They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too.

For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere. I doubt that will change in the next twenty to thirty years.

I don't need pundits to tell me that island bases are vital. The various history books I read superficially make that clear.

Um, you did note that I mentioned those guys were 30-40 years out of date? So are some of those inept Generals and Admirals you despise...

Et Tu?

Umm, question. Just out of curiosity, did you mean you read superficially or that the books treatment of things you read is superficial?

Everybody had better support them, or they will hear that midnight knock. We will have to disagree again.

Works for me...

Now that is some rhetorical technique. Just argue that the world is going to go the way you say, fairly rapidly, and when it does boy will the ground be cut out from under me.

Not a rhetorical technique, just a statement of opinion -- note the first word here; "If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian..." A statement of opinion and potential followed by a logical premise that isl predicated on that IF.

... I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree....

Noted. We often disagree. Time will tell.

[carl]

Let me put it this way. I haven't been embarrassed by anything the US has done in my lifetime. I could and have wished that some things had been done better but that's mostly from an effectiveness standpoint. You may or may not have been embarrassed, don't know -- but I do know some who've been embarrassed by US actions. Pity...

I have. I remember reading that during the Vietnam War, there was some kind of agreement between the US and the North Vietnamese. We weren't supposed to fly over. Unfortunately, there were around 40 or so South Vietnamese agents that were still in the DRV when the agreement went into effect. The USAF guys wanted an exception made so they could be extracted. It was not allowed. So we left them there and all were picked up. I am actually not embarrassed by that. I am ashamed. Then there were the 3 Marines we left on Koh Tang Island. I am ashamed about that too. An exagerrated (sic) sense of shame I guess.

Regardless, the nation has not been embarrassed. As an expander, the word 'we' refers to persons, not things. A nation is not a person.

Thank you for that. Now I know.

Or you could become carrier qualified -- and don't bother with carrier killer ICBMS and / or cruise missiles. Unproven technology -- and unannounced technology (ours or theirs) are unknowns. For that and the rest of your paragraph, nuke boats don't need fillups, are not susceptible to ICBMs or cruise missiles and we do not have a monopoly but do have a decisive (advisedly chosen word.. ) edge in that sphere.

I don't know how to respond to that. I am certain you know about logistics trains, sea and air and how those change with distance over which something is to be supported. You know about American dependence upon air refueling, how carriers can't go swanning off by themselves, that VLS systems can't be reloaded at sea. You know all that stuff and all the rest inside and out. Since you know, the only thing I can conclude is that you delight in faking obtuse.

Umm, question. Just out of curiosity, did you mean you read superficially or that the books treatment of things you read is superficial?

It was a straight line that was yours to use if you cared to. You did.

Not a rhetorical technique, just a statement of opinion -- note the first word here; "If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian..." A statement of opinion and potential followed by a logical premise that isl predicated on that IF.

Ok. I get it now.

[Ken White]

I have. I remember reading that during the Vietnam War, there was some kind of agreement between the US and the North Vietnamese...

No need to be embarrassed or ashamed. You didn't have anything to do with it and you couldn't have prevented that. Many far worse things tha happened there. If one wishes to be embarrassed or ashamed of anything that occurred in or about Viet Nam, one could start with the fact that the Brothers Kennedy started the totally unnecessary war to boost the US economy and to prove the Democratic Party could be tough on Communism. It was a war in which we had no business and in which there was no real US interest.

Since you know, the only thing I can conclude is that you delight in faking obtuse.

I'm not the one being obtuse nor am I faking anything. I mentioned Carrier qual only with respect to you and your comment:

"Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land. They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too."

I said nothing about using carriers to mess with China, in fact I think that would be sorta dumb. That's why I suggested that the nuke boats, SSBN, SSN and particularly the SSGNs. None of which most other nations can really counter and which don't have a refueling problem. Nor would I send Bones, B2s or 52s -- or F15Es for that matter -- anywhere until the Tomahawks had pretty well done in the relevant -- not all, just relevant -- ADA systems.

"I still think land bases and islands are as useful to navies and naval power as they ever were."

They are if you're going to use Carrier Battle Groups and surface warships though I'm unsure why you would do that in anything above mid intensity conflict (where they have their uses). In a high intensity fight, the Carrier and surface ships are big fat targets and an impediment until a lot of sanitizing in the objective area has occurred.

They always told me the Generals and Admirals prepared for the last war -- no one mentioned that civilian Pilots did so as well.

My fellow curmudgeon Bill Sweetman not withstanding, the F35 brings some new capabilities for later phase of operations while the production models of the X-47B as AQ-whatevers, will aid in the initial effort, not least because they'll have twice the range and loiter time of the 18s or 35s -- and even that can and will be extended by by Buddy Tanking refueling from other AQ-whatevers. Then there's the X-37...

... I prefer to judge for myself and if they recognize the importance of conveniently placed island and land bases, I figure they are seeing what has been plainly evident throughout the whole history of sea fighting.

Do they recognize importance or are they parroting conventional wisdom based on 30-40 year old concepts and capabilities? Good for you arriving at your own judgements; bad for them that they, like some Gen-Gens and Admirals are still looking behind instead of ahead. Both the FlagOs and the punditocracy have a vested interest in as little change as possible; makes 'em look smart. Fortunately, as Ernie King said on 30 December 1941; "When they get in trouble they send for the sons-of-bitches." So we do that and the young SOBs discard the old ways and get with the program. We may not have as much time in the future but we know that and people are thinking...

Me too what?

A tongue in cheek reference to old ways; 30-40 year old concepts...

History can never be more than a 'sorta, maybe' guide, militarily one should not let it cloud thinking or ever dictate what one can or will do. In fact, one should do their best to avoid what went before lest they establish a pattern that can be circumvented. Though it's quite okay to let folks think one is planning on doing that old, tired thing while he or she actually contemplates something entirely different. We do that fairly well..

[carl]

Ken:

As far as the importance of land bases and island bases go, you're wrong. The entire history of sea fighting from the time of rafts with spearmen on board has demonstrated the need for bases. The latest tech toys don't change that. Some people fight the last battle, some recognize the fundamentals, and some fall in love with the latest and greatest gimmick and tool and think that changes the fundamentals.

Oh. I thought of something else. In any kind of sea fight with anybody, you are going to have to move supplies with surface ships. I can't think of one where that didn't happen. And when you do that, you have to defend them from air attack. Subs can't do that. You need surface ships or aircraft...which brings us to the need for land bases conveniently located.

[Ken White]

As far as the importance of land bases and island bases go, you're wrong.

As I wrote earlier, that happens. Rarely. And not on this.

I didn't write they generically were unimportant. You do a lot of standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions. I didn't write they were all unnecessary, merely that the ones you've mentioned are not totally critical and that there were workarounds. You might also consider the issue of when which Islands may be a detriment and when they might be beneficial...

In any event, I'll now go a step farther and suggest that for a variety of reasons (not least including who can best cope with time:distance issues and net weapon available numbers) we're better off without that outer perimeter you and John Foster Dulles like. Ducks sitting and all that. Recall that Pearl Harbor was an attack on US Soil and it got a response. An attack on Taiwan or the Philippines will NOT get such a political response -- nor should it.

You may have seen me rail against the FOBs in Afghanistan -- that's a tactically unsound approach that violates the fundamentals of avoiding tieing down force to fixed locations, avoiding tactical repetition and not providing easy targets as well as several others. The Islands you want -- as opposed to all the other places available in the pacific -- are FOBs and they are as dumb as the bases in the 'Stan. Fixed Bases are targets and they severely inhibit the most important fundamental, Maneuver and it's ally, Flexibility.

Some people fight the last battle, some recognize the fundamentals, and some fall in love with the latest and greatest gimmick and tool and think that changes the fundamentals.

And some learned the fundamentals the hard way and know that some, not all, new tools will not change everything but can and will aid in accomplishing those fundementals and changing, if slightly, the way business is done.

Some also are far too old, experienced and cynical to fall in love with much of anything...

A lot of new stuff is borderline worthless for warfighting -- but some of it has great merit and applies directly to those fundamentals. Note the subject of my last comment and Google it. Not much new under the sun -- or sea. Nothing I've mentioned is really new except possibly the X-37 which is only kinda new; all those items have been seen and used before and all the current iterations have been in development for years except the X-47B which the Navy is moving big bucks to -- do those stodgy Admirals know something...

As an aside, it is important to realize with fundamentals that one cannot pick and choose those one likes -- you have to take them all, they're part of an inseparable total package...

Oh. I thought of something else. In any kind of sea fight with anybody, you are going to have to move supplies with surface ships. I can't think of one where that didn't happen. And when you do that, you have to defend them from air attack. Subs can't do that. You need surface ships or aircraft...which brings us to the need for land bases conveniently located.

At the risk of sounding Clintonesque, define 'conveniently.'

Define also 'sea fight.' Sub surface, surface, above the surface or way, way, way above the surface...

You may not think so but the Navy thinks it fights in all those and does so simultaneously. They consider themselves a Sea service. They also have well over 50 year experience at it and that matters a great deal -- plus they have a lot of experience dealing with 'inconvenience'...

All unduly bellicose, the Chinese, hopefully, will be smarter than we are likely to be and none of this is likely to be problematical for a good many years if ever. You worry too much...

[carl]

Um, you did note that I mentioned those guys were 30-40 years out of date? So are some of those inept Generals and Admirals you despise...

Et Tu?

Yes I did note that you mentioned that. But I prefer to judge for myself and if they recognize the importance of conveniently placed island and land bases, I figure they are seeing what has been plainly evident throughout the whole history of sea fighting.

Me too what?

[JMA]

OTOH and regrettably, our politicians have shown a complete willingness to disregard obvious consequences for short term political gain and our electorate is too fragmented to force the issue. That's true today. A couple of years may make a difference but I'm skeptical. As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

Yes Ken and the Chinese will have realised that they must not provoke the US until they have reached the military level to back it up.

I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to while I believe the Chinese version is 'death by a thousand cuts'. The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.

I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).

[Ken White]

Yes Ken and the Chinese will have realised that they must not provoke the US until they have reached the military level to back it up.

Quite astute of you and the esteemed Asian gentlemen...

I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to...

I'm sure your advice for them is as well received as it by us here...

The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.

Mmmm. Loser? Quite doubtful. Self destruct -- almost certainly.

I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).

Heh. Not likely. They do need to learn Spanish, though. You need a map refresher...

[slapout9]

I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to while I believe the Chinese version is 'death by a thousand cuts'. The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.

You got my vote. All this talk about China becoming Capitalist is nothing but propaganda put out by the American RPI(Rich People s's Insurgency)just because the Communist Chinese are (they are Commie to the corps)going to let the running dog Americans make some money does not mean they don't intend to try and dominate the world. Everything they are doing says just the opposite. Just wait till they land on the moon in a few years.

[Ken White]

You got my vote. All this talk about China becoming Capitalist is nothing but propaganda put out by the American RPI ... Just wait till they land on the moon in a few years.

Uh, okay. How long will that be after we did that?

Seem like we have some time and don't need to go into the China panic mode...

[slapout9]

Uh, okay. How long will that be after we did that?

I can't remember their stated goal, maybe 2020??

Seem like we have some time and don't need to go into the China panic mode...

Yes, in true Commie fashion they will wait as long as possible before they use the military in a direct manner, more likley they will try to control us economically by using their "Rare Earth Policy" at least that is my non-expert opinion.