What we support and defend

[davidbfpo]

Ganulv posted:

On the other hand the British had a notoriously uncooperative relationship with the Pashtun.

That is not my reading of history. The Pashtuns could respect the British, yes there was conflict and a lack of cooperation at times.

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

Ganulv posted:

That is not my reading of history. The Pashtuns could respect the British, yes there was conflict and a lack of cooperation at times.

That’s fair. In the same sense, any blanket ahistorical statement that the British and the French are allies or that the French and the Germans are enemies glosses over a lot of history.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Vast amounts of American capital are currently held by Middle Eastern royals and Asian businesses who owe their liberty and protection to America. Do we get Hyundai's at half price? Oil at cost? No.

At some point we will wake up and realize these "friends" were never friends at all and wonder why they do not help us in our hour of need as we helped them.

The US will protect others if it sees that action as in its own interest. It's not done out of charity. The idea, for example, that the US protected Saudi Arabia from Iraq and thus the Saudis owe us something is pretty far fetched. The US didn't intervene to protect the Saudi royals, they intervened to assure that all that oil wouldn't be taken over by people who would use it as a weapon against us. We'd do the same thing if Iran threatened to take over additional oil-producing areas. That has nothing to do with protecting anyone but ourselves, any protection extended is purely incidental and a quirk of transient overlapping interests. They know that, so do we. They do throw us a few favors (like buying all their arms from us, though better deals can be had elsewhere), but business is still business.

Comparing the US to classic empires seems a bit silly to me, as the US is not an empire, unless we stretch the definition of "empire" way beyond the breaking point.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by ganulv

So your telling me that going to the effort to consult with local leaders indicates lack of involvement? That makes no sense to me.

In some other places, they took the chieftain's land (usually the most fertile around), required everyone to pay taxes and made sure the only way to get cash was to work at low wages on the new plantation.
People who didn't cooperate were beaten, people who resisted were shot.


Yeah, to discuss with traditional elites means a relative lack of involvement.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

They were much more involved in places with natural riches and decent possibilities for their transportation.

I actually wonder how profitable the Empire was to the British exchequer. I suspect that much of the profit accrued to private business, while the exchequer carried much of the cost needed to maintain the conditions that were conducive to that business. A rather good deal for the businessmen, of course. It would be interesting to see actual figures on how much was earned from the whole system on the public and private sides, both with and without the opium trade, an enormously profitable enterprise that would tend to skew the overall picture. Has to be remembered as well that the British working class was practically a colonized populace in its own right for much of the imperial period. Colonies provided cheap raw materials and extensive markets; a thoroughly oppressed low-cost manufacturing labor force kept costs down on the home front. Profitable, certainly, but in no sense replicable today... though the Chinese might be in the process of trying!

Originally Posted by ganulv

One does have to wonder about the good faith of empires in general given how many of them stood on principle rather than renegotiate the status quo.

I think there was often a quite acute sense of being heavily outnumbered, and a belief that any sign of "weakness" or willingness to negotiate might wake the natives up, with awful consequences. Of course the awful consequences arrived anyway. If you read the literature of the day, there was often a great deal of tension between home-front reformers who thought conditions needed to change to avoid revolution (or for humanitarian reasons) and those who saw the "reformers" as unrealistic faint-hearted do-gooders and believed that any change in the system (or their privileges) would be giving the wogs the inch that would lead them to take a mile.

Originally Posted by Fuchs

What would it have cost the British Empire to have really and truly extended political enfranchisement to the Founding Fathers? What would it have cost the French to have extended libert, galit, and fraternit worth calling such to the Arab inhabitants of Algeria?

The British Empire in America dealt with a quite unique situation in that those who became rebellious were the colonists, rather than the colonized. Doesn't really compare well to situations in which an empire dealt with a colonized population.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

Comparing the US to classic empires seems a bit silly to me, as the US is not an empire, unless we stretch the definition of "empire" way beyond the breaking point.

That may be true but when out in one of lands of the Hesco barrier, it sure is fun to say you are calling from your little spot on the imperial frontier.

[Fuchs]

Dayuhan, the last quote isn't mine.

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

It would be interesting to see actual figures on how much was earned from the whole system on the public and private sides, both with and without the opium trade, an enormously profitable enterprise that would tend to skew the overall picture.

The easiest way to look at it is to look at the goods trade balance of the UK in the late 19th century.
The human capital export was no doubt considerable, but that human capital was -once exported- sustained (fed) by foreigners, so this could be treated like migration.


Germany - which only colonised the poor countries which were left by the late 19th century save for Abyssinia - had a clearly negative cost/benefit result. The colonies costed many times as much as they generated income.
We got rid of at least some assholes, though.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

Military action kept South Korea, South Korea.

This is true, and the precedent will be worth considering if any of today's communist states set out to conquer anyone. That remains quite hypothetical at this point.

Originally Posted by carl

The Philippines aren't communist. Thailand ain't either

Not through any doing of ours. If we'd kept Marcos in power any longer, the Communists might well have got in... as in some other places, the guy we thought was keeping the commies out was in fact the best thing that ever happened to them.

Originally Posted by carl

So I what I see is Commies in=mass murder and suffering. Commies out=a lot less mass murder and suffering. I am not a sophisticated guy but that seems a simple choice.

Like most choice, it's simple when we make it for ourselves. Make the choice for somebody else, and it gets less simple.

Originally Posted by carl

I have made it clear in this thread and the other about the South China Sea what I mean when I say not letting them shove allies around. But I will say it again. For starters make it clear that Taiwan stays Taiwan unless there is a free decision by the Taiwanese to subject themselves to Red Chinese authority. Any sort of violence or coercion to effect that outcome is a no go. The South China Sea stays an open sea. Any claim of soveriegnty (sic) by anybody is a no go. How's that?

Sounds like a bunch of blustering words that aren't likely to be backed up by action. What's the "or what" that goes with "no go"? What do we do if the Chinese repond (though they probably wouldn't, they don't show much sense of irony) that US military intervention in the Middle East is a "no go"?

Supposing you do say this, what do you expect to be the result? You know, of course, that they will have to come up with an aggressive, even belligerent response. No choice there, to do anything else would be to look weak in the eyes of their own people and their neighbors. Probably they won't actually attack anyone, since they really don't want to do that... so maybe fire off some missile tests, big naval exercises too close to others, harass a few ships... then we go back to the status quo ante. So what have you achieved, other than to make yourself feel good? You've empowered the most militarist factions on the Chinese side and made it a little easier for them to build some nationalism and a sense of oppression among their own people, which as always will garner support for their government (about the only thing that will get Chinese to support their government is criticism of that government by the US)... so I suppose you could feel good about that, if you really want to.

I realize that you fear and loathe communists in general and Chinese communists in particular. My point, which I may be communicating badly, is that fear and loathing are neither a policy nor a strategy, nor do they get us any closer to a policy or a strategy... like most strong emotions, they make a poor basis for policy and strategy.

Originally Posted by carl

The Reds may not be able to fully control that large number of sophisticated people but they have been doing well enough so far. I see no weakening of party control. I see that blind guy was genuinely concerned when word was passed that somebody might beat his wife to death. Seems a pretty strong police state to me.

Have you been paying attention to Chinese internal affairs at all? The signs of stress are easy enough to see. Yes, the crackdowns are still brutal, and getting more frequent. That brutality is not a sign of strength. If a police state is strong, they don't have to crack down, because nobody dares to challenge them.

Originally Posted by carl

Whipping trouble with foreigners is time honored way for police states to distract their people from internal problems. To go along with that it is time honored for some of those foreigners to say if we just avoid making them mad at us that effort will fail. I am skeptical of that.

We want the Chinese people to be mad at their government. Their government wants them to be mad at us. How does it help us to make it easier for the Chinese government to evoke the response they want?

Originally Posted by carl

Opposing evil is a good thing. Not opposing it is a bad thing. But first you have to recognize that the evil exists. If you don't see it, you won't do the good thing. That is why it is important to see communism for what it is. Now once you see that, you can oppose it adroitly or maladroitly, but you gotta see it for what it is.

A response based on subjective and emotional conclusions is more likely to be maladroit. You think the Chinese are evil murdering criminals. A lot of people feel the same way about us... after all, we initiated a bloody war on very shaky grounds that many people see as an outright grab for oil resources. Of course in your opinion they are wrong and you are right, we're not really evil murdering criminals and they really are. Others have other opinions. Much of foreign affairs is recognizing and managing perception, and while your perceptions may be shared on the home front, trumpeting them overseas is as likely to harm our cause as to help it.

Originally Posted by carl

I know I will never stop you from characterizing concerns that you disagree with as "panic" but at least I can play around with it sometimes.)

You could try a less panicked tone. I disagree with RCJ all the time, can't recall ever suspecting him of panic.

Originally Posted by carl

Ultimately political change in Red China will come from within. But our actions can help maintain the status quo so as to give the system time to rot from within

Does chest-thumping bluster help maintain the status quo? Sounds a debatable proposition...

[ganulv]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

In some other places, they took the chieftain's land (usually the most fertile around), required everyone to pay taxes and made sure the only way to get cash was to work at low wages on the new plantation.
People who didn't cooperate were beaten, people who resisted were shot.

Yes, in some places at some times there was a simple oppressor/oppressed relationship. But not everywhere always was the Belgian Congo. I’m not trying to be an apologist for colonialism, I’m trying to point out that things weren’t as simple as Whiggish and post-colonial partisans would have us believe.

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Yeah, to discuss with traditional elites means a relative lack of involvement.

It sounds like more work over the long haul than lining people up against a wall, but I’ll take your word for it.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

The Soviet Union fell mostly because the economic system was hopeless. It was going to go sooner or later. It went sooner because Gorby let up on the reins in an attempt to get some productivity out of a hopeless system.

What you don't seem to recognize is that the Chinese have also been forced to modify the system enormously in order to achieve the economic success they've had. The long-term impact of those changes is difficult to assess at this point, but the populace has achieved a level of connectedness, awareness, and capacity that certainly raises doubts about the ability of the state to maintain long term control. Certainly they can do it as long as the cash rolls in at ever increasing levels, but that looks ever more doubtful.

Originally Posted by carl

The Eastern European Communist dictatorships were held in place by the armed might of the Red Army. Once that support was no longer certain they were doomed. Internal opposition didn't do so well against the Red Army in 1956 or 1968. Starry eyed idealism aside, if the Red Army was there, it was a no go.

The Red Army was around when the Soviet Union fell. The worst nightmare of the dictator is not the day when the white-hatted liberators from afar show up to overthrow them, it's the day when their own army decides that they suck and it's time to get rid of them.

Originally Posted by carl

I didn't miss any point. All that high minded idealist communist claptrap was tinsel on a murderous regime, almost always more murderous than the one replace. An awful lot of people in those various countries realized that at the time which is one of the reasons they fought them. They were right about what would ensue after the high minded commies took the joint over.

You missed the point quite spectacularly, it seems. Would you say that, for example, overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh because the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company said he was a commie was a good idea, or that it worked out well for us in the long run? Did getting rid of popular leaders like Lumumba and Allende build our influence in the developing world? Did supporting corrupt, inept, and doomed figures like a Batista, a Somoza, a Marcos impair or assist the spread of communism? The credibility the left long enjoyed in the developing world didn't stem from what they could or did do when they took power. They recognized and seized, before us, the moral high ground and historical momentum of opposition to failing colonial powers at corrupt dictatorships. We let them do it, and played into their hands, a strategy supported by those who shared your fear and loathing for the communists. The issue is not whether that fear and loathing were justified in the abstract, the issue is whether they did or did not produce effective policy.

Originally Posted by carl

I don't think it is overrated. (see above) You do. We're even.

I've seen the arguments. They are not convincing, unless you really want to be convinced.

Originally Posted by carl

How I propose opposing the Reds now is in post 197.

If you mean this:

Well there is a long history of how to do it successfully. Among the things to do are speak up when they behave badly. Don't hold them to a lower international standard of behavior because they grouse about how badly they been treated. Stop thinking they are ten feet tall. They screw up more than most and they aren't fearless. That is bluster. They get scared just like everybody else. Remember what Grant learned at the Battle of Belmont (I think it was the Battle of Belmont). Don't let them shove around allies just because people inside the beltway are feeling windy. Don't fool yourself into thinking we can get them to like us short of complete surrender. They will propagandize their people as they please no matter what we do. It is easy to lie when you control the media completely. The most important thing though is to realize communism is a pernicious evil system that has resulted in more human death and suffering than any other. There is no good in that system, only greater and lesser degrees of evil. Realize to that they lie almost always and about everything. All those economic numbers they put out shouldn't be trusted.

that seems to me far too general to be of any real use.

Originally Posted by carl

Bearing in mind that internal unrest only makes a difference if the police state has been weakened and the grip thereby loosened. There is no evidence of that happening in NK or Red China yet.

Actually there's considerable evidence that it's happening, if you choose to look. Of course things are never simple... the Chinese populace is anything but happy about the rampant corruption, growing inequality, and crude brutality of the state. On the other hand they recognize that the state as currently constituted has made China strong and a power to be reckoned with for the first time in centuries, and despite their dislike for the internal workings of that state, there's a real national pride that goes with that status. The state will play that card to the extent that we can. Helping them play it is not in our interest.

Originally Posted by carl

[This is an aside, but it is surprising how much Soviet arms decisions were reactions to what the West did, at least in tanks. Often they did things just to beat the west just a little. The 100 mm gun had to be bigger than the 90 mm gun. The 115 mm gun had to be bigger than the 105 mm. I was surprised when I read that.]

That sounds kind of like the occasional paranoia induced by the observation that the stealth jet the Chinese are testing is bigger than the stealth jet the US is testing.

One factor that caused the Soviet Union to fall was their insistence on pursuing an arms race they really had no need to be in. That was a stupid decision on their part, a consequence of the knee-jerk thinking that holds that if they have x, we must have y, or x to the third power. That wasn't us hurting them, that was them hurting themselves. It would be most ironic if we turned around and did the same thing to ourselves...

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

The Americans never really mastered this indirect rule and the setup of effective indigenous sepoy-like forces either.

The US did this fairly effectively in the Philippines, their only true imperial venture.

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Only true empires that mastered the "empire" business get true empire benefits

This is true, but one also must note that "the empire business" wasn't always appropriate to powers that set out on it. US imperial profit in the Philippines, for example, was heavily constrained by political pressure from domestic agro-industrial interests who did not want to face competition from cheaper goods imported from a colony. US beet sugar producers successfully campaigned for land ownership restrictions aimed at preventing the development of a cane sugar industry in the Philippines, and domestic producers of corn and soybean oil successfully lobbied to restrict entry of coconut oil. A british cotton farmer in India or Egypt didn't have to worry about domestic competitors in Bognor Regis agitating for tariffs on goods coming in from the colonies.

The textbook colonial economic arrangement never emerged in the Philippines largely because the role of the colony was already being filled domestically by the American west and south, which had more political clout. The US really had little compelling economic motivation to colonize; the motivation was primarily political, a desire to be a world power and play the game with the big (European) players.

Of course post-WW2 that changed, but the world had changed with it and traditional empire was no longer a practical or economically viable construct. Neocolonialism proved awkward as well...

[carl]

Originally Posted by ganulv

...my impression is that at some point the folks in the periphery are going to expect comity of treatment or reasonable privileges. One does have to wonder about the good faith of empires in general given how many of them stood on principle rather than renegotiate the status quo. What would it have cost the British Empire to have really and truly extended political enfranchisement to the Founding Fathers? What would it have cost the French to have extended libert, galit, and fraternit worth calling such to the Arab inhabitants of Algeria?

Those are critical points. The Romans did extend that and their empire lasted a long time. One of the things Alaric was upset about is he didn't get the rank in the Roman Army he wanted. I read an article once that said the strongest motivation for various North African takfiri killer's antipathy toward France was they were hurt that France wasn't more accepting of them.

If you really want the empire to last, maybe you have to treat it like a club and allow anybody who wants to join and abide by the rules, to join.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

That sounds kind of like the occasional paranoia induced by the observation that the stealth jet the Chinese are testing is bigger than the stealth jet the US is testing.

One factor that caused the Soviet Union to fall was their insistence on pursuing an arms race they really had no need to be in. That was a stupid decision on their part, a consequence of the knee-jerk thinking that holds that if they have x, we must have y, or x to the third power. That wasn't us hurting them, that was them hurting themselves. It would be most ironic if we turned around and did the same thing to ourselves...

Geesh Dayuhan, you just can't leave a simple thing be simple can you. It was just a simple observation that when picking calibres for tank main guns, the Soviet powers that seemed to fixate on having a gun 10 mm bigger than the primary gun of the west's tanks, rather than looking at things like range, accuracy, penetration etc.

And the J-20 is way bigger than the F-35, approx 70' x 42' vs. 51' x 35'.

I have to get used to be called panic stricken if my concerns differ from yours. I guess I'll have to get used to being called paranoid too.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by carl

And the J-20 is way bigger than the F-35, approx 70' x 42' vs. 51' x 35'.

Is it way better? Oh right, we don't know. We must still be very very afraid because... well, because we must. How else can we justify bankrupting ourselves to defend against the threat?

Originally Posted by carl

I have to get used to be called panic stricken if my concerns differ from yours. I guess I'll have to get used to being called paranoid too.

Different is different. Panic-stricken is panic-stricken. Paranoid is paranoid. Three different things, though the second two go well together.

[Ken White]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

The Americans never really mastered this indirect rule and the setup of effective indigenous sepoy-like forces either.

True...

Only true empires that mastered the "empire" business get true empire benefits.

And I think you just responded to your own comment...

Carl:

Whipping trouble with foreigners is time honored way for police states to distract their people from internal problems. To go along with that it is time honored for some of those foreigners to say if we just avoid making them mad at us that effort will fail. I am skeptical of that.

Not only Police States, we aren't a police state -- yet -- and we excel at and indeed need to whip up trouble with foreigners for pretty much that reason...

Take a look at most of our excursions since WW II and you'll see they generally start in economic downturns and the party incumbent in the WH is either in trouble or trying to avoid some...

It was just a simple observation that when picking calibres for tank main guns, the Soviet powers that seemed to fixate on having a gun 10 mm bigger than the primary gun of the west's tanks, rather than looking at things like range, accuracy, penetration etc.

That's more a function of less sophisticated engineering, metallurgy and production, it's primarily to achieve nearly the same effect as the smaller, more efficient western weapons and ammunition. They also have long produced weapons with a slightly larger caliber so they can use captured ammo stocks (poorly and inaccurately but usable...) while the reverse is not true. Their 82mm mortar versus the German (and NATO) 81mm for example, the 115mm tank versus the 105mm tank guns, 125 vs. 120 etc., the 152mm Howitzer versus the Czech and German 150mm. The 120mm Gun though was purely a function of trying to equal the capability of the German 105mm. ..

And the J-20 is way bigger than the F-35, approx 70' x 42' vs. 51' x 35'.

And the more comparable F-22 of which there are far more than there are J-20s (and of which we have the capability of producing many more. Yes, I know the line is 'closed.') measures 62x44 -- and yet again, much, much better western engines, more refined techniques and metallurgy account for the only slightly smaller size.

I have to get used to be called panic stricken if my concerns differ from yours. I guess I'll have to get used to being called paranoid too.

Well, I don't think you're panic stricken. Over concerned perhaps but that's probably attributable to philosophic and opinion differences. Mildly paranoid a bit, perhaps -- but who isn't about something or other...

OTOH, it sometimes appears you think others are unconcerned about potential problems because they offer differing thoughts and opinions. That's probably as big a misperception as your being panic stricken could be.

[wm]

Originally Posted by carl

Geesh
And the J-20 is way bigger than the F-35, approx 70' x 42' vs. 51' x 35'.

Particularly the scene found here

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Ken White

(...)the 152mm Howitzer versus the Czech and German 150mm. The 120mm Gun though was purely a function of trying to equal the capability of the German 105mm.

Their 152 mm gun-howitzers were actually superior to German WW2 heavy howitzers. The small difference in calibre was more about metric vs other measurement system and history than anything else. Many official "150" mm howitzers of the era were in fact 149.1 mm pieces.

The only 120 mm guns used by Russians were IIRC WWI vintage guns. The calibre was a popular calibre pre-WWI and the Russians imported the design.
Their 122 mm gun has a similarly old history, being a traditional calibre and not really related to a competition with 105 mm.
122 mm is actually a superior calibre in comparison to 105 mm if you don't need light weight. 149-155 mm is relatively if you desire smoke or frag effect, yet 122 mm is much better than 105 mm for ICM and blast effect and achieves good range more easily than 105 mm (less V0, less barrel wear).

As of today I'd prefer a new 122 mm SPG over a 155 mm SPG because range isn't that important and most countries banned DPICM.

[carl]

Originally Posted by Ken White

They also have long produced weapons with a slightly larger caliber so they can use captured ammo stocks (poorly and inaccurately but usable...) while the reverse is not true. Their 82mm mortar versus the German (and NATO) 81mm for example, the 115mm tank versus the 105mm tank guns, 125 vs. 120 etc., the 152mm Howitzer versus the Czech and German 150mm. The 120mm Gun though was purely a function of trying to equal the capability of the German 105mm.

Ken, at the risk of incurring your ire, I'll buy that with regard to mortars but not tank guns. No way. If you just look at a 105 round meant to be fired from a rifled gun vs. a 115 round meant to be fired from a smoothbore gun it just doesn't seem like there is any way. You'll have to provide some references before I'll accept that.

The thing about exactly 10 mm was a point, IIRC, raised by the authors of the book I read.

http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Russian...tillery+design

Originally Posted by Ken White

..And the more comparable F-22 of which there are far more than there are J-20s (and of which we have the capability of producing many more. Yes, I know the line is 'closed.') measures 62x44 -- and yet again, much, much better western engines, more refined techniques and metallurgy account for the only slightly smaller size.

What works for guns doesn't work for airplanes. For your comparison to be valid the aircraft would have to be designed for the same mission and requirements. The Red Chinese haven't told us how the J-20 will be used or what its design requirements are but I strongly doubt they mirror those of the F-22. Those guys aren't stupid and the configuration of that airplane was mostly driven by what the requirements are. Less sophisticated material would only have something to do with it, not everything. That thing has an awful lot of internal volume.

Once a line is closed, that's basically it. You ain't going to get it going again in anything less than years and beaucoup bucks. The people all scatter to the four winds. The suppliers all are doing something else and their tooling may be gone. Their people are scattered to the four winds. That line isn't coming back

[carl]

Originally Posted by wm

Particularly the scene found here

WM I think I get the point you are trying to make (something about mere sized conferring advantage) but it doesn't have much, nothing, to do with high performance aircraft, design requirements etc etc etc.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Fuchs

I probably misunderstood you, but I don't think what you think is moral would stand the Kant's Categorical Imperative test.

Sorry for the late response. It probably wouldn't pass Kant's standard but I would regard that as a......... moral thing

Major Kong on moral riightness and stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CRRVZqrRl0