|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SuperFly

Joined: 09 Jul 2003 Location: In the doghouse
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject: "There can never be too much deception in war." |
|
|
Comrades.
I invite you to read an interesting 2 part article.
And about why I didn't post it in current events....well I plead the fifth.
Part 1 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ19Ad01.html
Part 2 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ20Ad01.html
Read it, come back and leave your comments. Make them brief, try not to get into arguments, and have a good safe evening.
Oh, and if you get a chance, tell me what you think - part 2 on:
5 Attack on US aircraft carrier battle groups |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't have time to read all of it yet, but will when I have more time. My response from skimming it was that it seemed exaggerated. There was a 'be afraid of China' feeling to it.
One thing I noticed:
| Quote: |
Another "acupuncture point" in America�s anatomy in the event of a major conflict with China (and Russia) is its inherent disadvantage dictated by geography. Being the lone superpower, any major conventional conflict involving the US will necessitate its bringing its forces to bear on its adversaries. This means that the US must cross the Pacific, Indian, and/or Atlantic Oceans in order to bring logistics or troop reinforcements to the battlefield.
In so doing, the US will be crossing thousands of miles of sea lanes of communication (SLOC) that can easily become a gauntlet of deadly Chinese and Russian submarines lying in ambush with bottom-rising sea mines, supercavitating rocket torpedoes, and supersonic cruise missiles that even aircraft carrier battle groups have no known defense against. |
Don't the Chinese and Russians also have to cross the same oceans to get at the US?
Another thing, as the Chinese economy grows past the US, will Russia remain as friendly to China as they are now? Nixon and Chou saw it to be in their interest to side together against the Soviets. At some point, it might occur to Russian and American presidents to side against China. In politics you don't have permanent friends and enemies. You have permanent interests. (Added as an after-thought: If I remember my Machiavelli right, the only real interest a Prince has is in maintaining his state.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it talks about Chinese strategy to world domination, but it doesn't mention other country's strategies. It sounds from that article like the world is just going to roll over and let china have its way.
Fortunately that's not the way things usually work. Everybody's grabbing for power at the same time, that's why its so hard to catch hold of it. Other states are going to take advantage of a shift in the stance of one powerful state, so a powerful state is hampered in its actions.
I think that all the US has to do to neutralize Iran, for instance, is to quickly pull out of Iraq. The ensuing violent civil war in the middle east will have all the nations there in turmoil including Iran. The US could then apply its troops from Iraq in any number of different scenarios.
I could speculate at possible US strategy all day but I don't actually have the time. I'll pass the torch onto the next poster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the articles do not talk about China's plans for conquest but rather what their defensive options are if America gets wacky and starts swinging like a crazy person!
it goes to suggest that in contrast to what the neocons think, China, Russia and Iran in combination pose a considerable military force, which can oppose American military offensives. that is why China doesn't need to cross the ocean cause it would be the US forces that would be invading or going to foreign soil. these articles do not envision Chinese military adventurism.
coincidently, the US plans to militarize space is in response to the defensive options discussed in the articles. that is, the US planners recognize that missles can take down the communication/spy satelites, and as a result need to get to space first and block anyone else from getting out there.
thus their recent, and lightly publisized, space policy include such goals as:
| Quote: |
| #Develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain U.S. advantage... |
| Quote: |
| # Develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries |
look up the recent administration plans for weaponizing space. here's just one of many articles out there and below that is a link to the policy:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ESK20061015&articleId=3486
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/space.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|