Australian military fears over Timor link to China

[oceanx]

What about Russia? Sino-Soviet split was engineered by the West too, or do you think Russians are "Western dogs" too?

That might be a small point. But where is the evidence that the Sino-Soviet split was "engineered by the West"?

 

[CardSharp]

What the h*ll is this over-the-top fake nativist 民粹 garbage? While I in way condone fanaticism that destroys cultural inheritances, but how about a little perspective? Or common sense?

Was Buddhism not an "import" to East Asia, Mr. president wannabe of Asian American Tea Party? Was the Vedic Hindusim of yore not a heavily "import-flavoured" brand originating from West Asia?

Not that I particularly want to debate these points here. But I will if you open up a thread.

You are on imbecilic grounds by calling the Christian faith a "colonialist religion" ...

Granted, I trash-talk as frequently as any here. But yours takes the cake.

Meh I think an argument can be made for a colonialist history of Abrahamic religions. Given how Spanish missionaries played a key role in Pizzaro's conquest of the Inca and the impact of Christianity on native populations in Papua New Guinea. Also the effect on the social fabric in late 19th century China and the "rice christians"

And what's with the name calling? There are stupider things said here all the time, thought you'd used to it.

 

[oceanx]

i could ask, what is culture, and how do you distinguish someone who is "cultured" with someone who is "not" and even if someone has "culture", does that make a place have culture?

For your first two questions, the answers are "known unknows" and probably along the lines of "in the eyes of the beholder" kind of thing.

For your third question, the answer is IMO a "yes". Culture is tied to the living. Now the living can take pride in the past and the past can be the link to the present and thereby becoming a part of the breathing culture.

But everything about a "culture" is facilitated through the living.

Yes, having a "cultured people" calling a place home gives that place culture. Otherwise it's "just" archeology.

Now in further splitting of semantics, having a "cultured people" is probably not as crucial as having a people predisposed to culture and its "acquisition" ...

... and is there a logical relationship between foreignness and being cultured? if so, then new mexico is the most cultured place on earth since 90% of the population are "foreigners" to the host country.

Did I say or imply the above? Buddy it's a straw man you hand-made. Why thievishly stick it in my hands?

Let me stitch up a strawman and "gift" it to you ... so you are saying a trashy "new city" like Singapore has less culture than an old "centre of the middle kingdom" such as 新乡 (I use this place because I have visited it a few times since childhood - I like the place and people and have nothing against the city)

 

[oceanx]

Meh I think an argument can be made for a colonialist history of Abrahamic religions.

A fine distinction exists between "colonialistic" vs "proselytic". Classical Judaism has never been considered particularly proselytic. Before 1967, Judaism was not even colonial. Its Old Testament roots were nomadic replete with the usual ethnic cleansings that were the "way" of the nomads.

Given how Spanish missionaries played a key role in Pizzaro's conquest of the Inca and the impact of Christianity on native populations in Papua New Guinea. Also the effect on the social fabric in late 19th century China and the "rice christians"

Some might consider what I am about to say bordering on "trolling" ... but I'll say it anyways: how do you think Hindusim spread back in the early days?

Was Dr. Sun not a "rice Christian"? Any Rice Christian beats a northern Boxer, I'd say so without hesitation.

And what's with the name calling? There are stupider things said here all the time, thought you'd used to it.

You are right. I am histrionic. Will try to turn the other cheek. Must be the end of work-day let's kick up a fuss for nothing kinda thing. I'll go home and have a cooler and forget about this.

But really, your point is taken.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The point of your original post is taken. However, let's not go overboard. It's beyond a simple stretch to call the Imperial government "the fairest in the world over the past 1400 years".

Without being condescending, how well have you studied the "Imperial histories"? I have not studied it to the kind of detail that gives my confidence, and that's why I am asking.

So you consider the European Feudalism is a better candidacy for the Chinese system? I think the Nation State monarchs of the late 16th century would disagree with you. Without a centralized government the various European nations could not have risen.

Also keep in mind that the civil service exam, despite being ridiculed by the Fengqing and Jingying alike, was, from the Tang till Ming Dynasty, helped China build the fairest form of government. Finally you have an organized way of selecting governmental officials based upon merit and not kinship or bribery.

 

[siegecrossbow]

No, my notion of warfare is not outdated. It is forward thinking, for many reasons.

Let's talk about the technological reasons. First, PAK FA. Russia will make 200 for itself and India, and 600 for export. You say that mass tank battles will not occur anymore due to air superiority. When stealth fighters become the norm and every third world nation can field 50 PAK FA's (a quarter of America's F-22 power) suddenly air superiority is difficult or impossible making tank warfare primary again. Without air superiority, tank killers like Apache and A-10 will find it difficult to operate. The same goes for any dedicated tank killer. Second, tanks will soon all have active protection against anti-tank missiles and RPGs in Shtora and Arena and similar systems. The power of an infanteer to destroy a tank with a Javelin or RPG-29 will be neutered. Third are datalinks and so-called network-centric warfare. Eventually tanks and aircraft may be unmanned removing part of the horror of war and encouraging brush fights to test technology.

Finally, the "political" reasons. I quote political because they are not really political as in based on fears of encirclement or superpowers, but resource wars. Oil, clean water and even airable land will be fought over. America tried and failed in Iraq, but that doesn't mean other nations won't when the problem becomes critical. War will become the way politicians distract citizens from serious internal problems, a way to unify the country. Now, in order to seize resources you must have land forces. You can't hold an oil pipeline with airplanes. So mass tank battles will happen. It is only a matter of time.

So my ideas are not "outdated" but perhaps early by 50 - 100 years. But whoever starts preparing for the eventual problems first will have a head start and more likely to be the victor. Nobody really knows when oil prices will skyrocket, or when certain environmental problems begin causing mass panics or deaths.

What is this? 800 Pak-FAs? Please don't tell me that you got the number off some Indian/Russian fanboy blog. Let us suppose that Russia, with the current military budget (less than 1/10th of the U.S.) budget, could somehow produce 10 times the number of stealth fighters as the United States, could "any third world nations" really afford the ridiculous number of stealth fighters that you've mentioned? 50 stealth fighters for North Korea or Myanmar? That will friggin bankrupt them! Even if they could some how afford these planes how the how are they going to maintain them if they can't even take care of MIG-21s???

Now let us suppose by some miracle the Russians made stealth fighters cheaper than the average MIG-21 and twice as easy to maintain. Do you seriously think that fighter technology will stand still after the 5th generation? Once the stealth fighters are on the "cheap" end of the scale the U.S., China, and Russia will have probably developed something that is a lot better. Let me take one step back one last time - let us, assume, for some strange reason, that fighter tech stops advancing after the 5th generation. What is going to stop China, Russia, the U.S. from hoarding huge numbers of stealth fighters in an effort to gain air superiority over one another?

The lack of logic is destroying my reasoning as well...

Ok. Now let us talk about your claim that your theory is in fact, "earlier by 50-100 years". Do you really think politics will stand still in that period of time? In 100 years Britain changed from a super power to America's lapdog and the archenemies France and Germany are now in the same economical confederation. You are also trying to argue that the thousands of Russian tanks constitute a bigger danger than the American F-22s, implying that the Russians are a bigger threat to China in the near future than the Americans.

 

[asianamerican]

What the h*ll is this over-the-top fake nativist 民粹 garbage? While I in way condone fanaticism that destroys cultural inheritances, but how about a little perspective? Or common sense?

Was Buddhism not an "import" to East Asia, Mr. president wannabe of Asian American Tea Party? Was the Vedic Hindusim of yore not a heavily "import-flavoured" brand originating from West Asia?

Not that I particularly want to debate these points here. But I will if you open up a thread.

You are on imbecilic grounds by calling the Christian faith a "colonialist religion" ...

Granted, I trash-talk as frequently as any here. But yours takes the cake.

The reason why I think Christianity is a colonialist religion is because it was at the fore front of Western colonialism and imperialism. While Buddhism foster by cultural exchange, Christianity was brought over using cannons and guns.

It was well known that Christians and priests were acting on along side with colonialist.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

What is this? 800 Pak-FAs? Please don't tell me that you got the number off some Indian/Russian fanboy blog. Let us suppose that Russia, with the current military budget (less than 1/10th of the U.S.) budget, could somehow produce 10 times the number of stealth fighters as the United States, could "any third world nations" really afford the ridiculous number of stealth fighters that you've mentioned? 50 stealth fighters for North Korea or Myanmar? That will friggin bankrupt them! Even if they could some how afford these planes how the how are they going to maintain them if they can't even take care of MIG-21s???

Now let us suppose by some miracle the Russians made stealth fighters cheaper than the average MIG-21 and twice as easy to maintain. Do you seriously think that fighter technology will stand still after the 5th generation? Once the stealth fighters are on the "cheap" end of the scale the U.S., China, and Russia will have probably developed something that is a lot better. Let me take one step back one last time - let us, assume, for some strange reason, that fighter tech stops advancing after the 5th generation. What is going to stop China, Russia, the U.S. from hoarding huge numbers of stealth fighters in an effort to gain air superiority over one another?

The lack of logic is destroying my reasoning as well...

Ok. Now let us talk about your claim that your theory is in fact, "earlier by 50-100 years". Do you really think politics will stand still in that period of time? In 100 years Britain changed from a super power to America's lapdog and the archenemies France and Germany are now in the same economical confederation. You are also trying to argue that the thousands of Russian tanks constitute a bigger danger than the American F-22s, implying that the Russians are a bigger threat to China in the near future than the Americans.

Obviously you can't read. I said 200 each for Russia and India and 600 for export, not 800 for Russia. And this is not from some fanboy blog but the sourced wikipedia article to Sukhoi and Putin themselves reported by Reuters. The fanboys believe Russia will make 2000.

You assume that fighter technology isn't reaching a technological pinnacle and also assume there is something out there better than stealth that the US could produce. A good example is the billions blown on OICW and "next gen" rifles when AK-74 is good enough. Ever hear of diminishing returns? If stealth is a technological pinnacle the days of US air dominance are limited only to how long it takes the rest of the world to catch up.

Your entire case on Russia and China is based on emotions and current geopolitics, but when I mention other emotions and geopolitics you arbitrarily reject it. Meanwhile you blithely dismiss facts, that is the fact that ground forces and tanks are necessary to control territory and more dangerous than hundreds of Tomahawk missiles with frankly pathetic payload. London survived the blitz and so could Chinese. Of course you dismiss as "outdated" this and believe an air war is more of a threat. Basically you have a double standard -- you want me to accept your political analysis as dogma and truth, but when I mention political analysis with a conservative estimate you dismiss it.

Hopefully state planners in China are not as naive as you. It takes decades to prepare for certain types of war like the IJN's Manhan doctrine or German General Staff's blitzkreig. Following your advice, China will be caught with its pants down. In fact I don't know what your advice is other than "hope Russia plays nice."

 

[siegecrossbow]

Obviously you can't read. I said 200 each for Russia and India and 600 for export, not 800 for Russia. And this is not from some fanboy blog but the sourced wikipedia article to Sukhoi and Putin themselves reported by Reuters. The fanboys believe Russia will make 2000.

You assume that fighter technology isn't reaching a technological pinnacle and also assume there is something out there better than stealth that the US could produce. A good example is the billions blown on OICW and "next gen" rifles when AK-74 is good enough. Ever hear of diminishing returns? If stealth is a technological pinnacle the days of US air dominance are limited only to how long it takes the rest of the world to catch up.

Your entire case on Russia and China is based on emotions and current geopolitics, but when I mention other emotions and geopolitics you arbitrarily reject it. Meanwhile you blithely dismiss facts, that is the fact that ground forces and tanks are necessary to control territory and more dangerous than hundreds of Tomahawk missiles with frankly pathetic payload. London survived the blitz and so could Chinese. Of course you dismiss as "outdated" this and believe an air war is more of a threat. Basically you have a double standard -- you want me to accept your political analysis as dogma and truth, but when I mention political analysis with a conservative estimate you dismiss it.

Hopefully state planners in China are not as naive as you. It takes decades to prepare for certain types of war like the IJN's Manhan doctrine or German General Staff's blitzkreig. Following your advice, China will be caught with its pants down. In fact I don't know what your advice is other than "hope Russia plays nice."

Of course the state planners in China are not as naive as me. If I had the skills to be a state planner I wouldn't be toiling through the Electrical Engineering degree, lol.

I never said that Russia was not a threat nor is my geopolitical analysis based on sentiments. Unlike most Fengqing I am not anti-American (I do despise the rightwing, however) nor am I anti-Russian. I am only presenting the facts as I see it.

It is infact YOU who couldn't read. Go look at my reply and you will notice that I never said that the 800 planes will be produced for Russia only. I was only ridiculing you for proposing that Russia, given the current financial situations, could magically pull 800 stealth fighters out of her *** in what I assume to be the next three decades. You still hasn't answered any of my questions regarding the ridiculous cost-effectiveness and maintaneability of the PAK-FA.

The Ak-74 assault rifle is not a good example. Firearms, since its invention in the late 13th century in China, has gone numerous changes but also suffers from bouts of stagnation. The British brownbess, for example, remained virtually unchanged from the early till the late 18th century. Are you going to tell me that a smoothbore flintlock musket represents the epitome of firearms technology? Catridgeless ammo, "guided" bullets, electronic firing are just some of the potential innovations that I could
name off the top of my head.

Finally I think even you have to agree with the fact that the PLA is probably more knowledgeable about China defence than either of us. Look at what they are doing right now - cutting down on spending for the Chinese army (reducing the number of infantry) and spending more on the air force and navy. That doesn't exactly fit your notion of massive lines of tanks picking one another off, does it?

 

[TorontoNoctis]

If you don't think Russia will buy 800 PAK FA for itself then I don't know what you're laughing at. 80-100 million is not out of buy range for one squadron for even the poorest of countries, and just ten years ago top fighters cost 20 million so the price for stealth will definitely go down. Russia will not bankrupt itself by building 800 PAK FA first -- it will be show me the money and if you can't pay, too bad. And there will be a huge market since F-22 will never be exported. You seem to think it's like the cold war with the USSR giving away weapons but that isn't the case now.

Caseless ammo, airbursting munitions, guided rockets and even flachettes don't lower the lethality of AK-74 nor make it obsolete. That is the point of mentioning a technological pinnacle -- the USA can completely neuter the opposing airforce right now with near zero losses. If stealth proliferates that will no longer be the case and Western appetite for fighter pilots shot down is near zero.

Finally the Chinese expansion of navy and airforce is due to its interests (obviously) in Taiwan. But if you want to hope that Russia won't take advantage of a Taiwan reunification/invasion and in the name of "international peace" or "global security" or "democracy" or some such excuse and attack right when China is preoccupied with Taiwan, it is up to you. Personally I would not make such a bet. Russians are traditional enemies of the Chinese and if you speak to an average Russian you will find out they hate multiculturalism, hate other races and especially hate asians more than whites.

 

[siegecrossbow]

If you don't think Russia will buy 800 PAK FA for itself then I don't know what you're laughing at. 80-100 million is not out of buy range for one squadron for even the poorest of countries, and just ten years ago top fighters cost 20 million so the price for stealth will definitely go down. Russia will not bankrupt itself by building 800 PAK FA first -- it will be show me the money and if you can't pay, too bad. And there will be a huge market since F-22 will never be exported. You seem to think it's like the cold war with the USSR giving away weapons but that isn't the case now.

Caseless ammo, airbursting munitions, guided rockets and even flachettes don't lower the lethality of AK-74 nor make it obsolete. That is the point of mentioning a technological pinnacle -- the USA can completely neuter the opposing airforce right now with near zero losses. If stealth proliferates that will no longer be the case and Western appetite for fighter pilots shot down is near zero.

Finally the Chinese expansion of navy and airforce is due to its interests (obviously) in Taiwan. But if you want to hope that Russia won't take advantage of a Taiwan reunification/invasion and in the name of "international peace" or "global security" or "democracy" or some such excuse and attack right when China is preoccupied with Taiwan, it is up to you. Personally I would not make such a bet.

I'm glad that we are at least getting some (albeit reluctant) consensus on some points.

True, the estimated cost of the PAK-FA is around 80 to 100 million USD. However do you know what the cost of the F-22 is? 150 million dollars. Yet the United States is forced to limit production to only 187 (about 160 something is produced as of today) despite having one of the highest budgets in the world. You have to remember that it is not just the production fee that matters. You also have astronomical maintenance fees associated with these planes. How much does it cost for the F-22 to stay up in the air for just one hour? $44,000. Billions will be spent just to train the pilots and keep the planes themselves combat ready. Stealth fighters are not luxury cars. You can't just buy one and stow them away in some garage and hope that it impress your neighbors!

The U.S. air force isn't invincible but it is pretty much the next best thing. The CVGBs aren't just there for show and the air force has gained great experience in the numerous air combats with nations equipped with Soviet weaponry. The 4th gen U.S. planes have engaged air targets over Libya, Iraq, and Bosnia and almost always came out on top (only air to air loss, I believe, was a F-18 shot down by a MIG-25 in Iraq). Can you say that the USAF (USNAF) are not serious threats to Chinese air security?

I never said that China should completely relax the guards against the Russians (there are troops stationed next to the Russian and even North Korean borders). However I think it is extremely unlikely for them to turn against China anytime soon. Let's say Russia picks up the Democratic flag (unlikely under Putin's watch) and backstabs China during her confrontation with Taiwan. China will be destroyed, but so will Russia. Do you think the U.S. will get offer the bear a nice set of dentures after all of her teeth gets knocked out? Only morons would do that! For all we know we may have U.S. troops on Russian soil hunting down every last nuclear device just to make sure that the bombs don't fall into the wrong hands in the aftermath of the collapse of the Russian Federation.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Personally I would not make such a bet. Russians are traditional enemies of the Chinese and if you speak to an average Russian you will find out they hate multiculturalism, hate other races and especially hate asians more than whites.

When did this happen?

I had a Russian friend when I was growing up, and I have never heard about such Russian racism against Chinese in particular?

Geopolitically, Russia is aligned against AMERICA, not China.

hate other races and especially hate asians more than whites.

Umm.... Russians ARE white.

Racism in post-Soviet Russia appears mainly in the form of negative attitudes and actions towards people who are not considered ethnically Russian. Traditionally, this included antisemitism, as well as hostility towards various South Caucasian and Central Asian ethnicities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Russia

It says that the most prevalent forms of racism in Russia are against Jewish people, South Caucasians and Central Asians.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

I'm glad that we are at least getting some (albeit reluctant) consensus on some points.

True, the estimated cost of the PAK-FA is around 80 to 100 million USD. However do you know what the cost of the F-22 is? 150 million dollars. Yet the United States is forced to limit production to only 187 (about 160 something is produced as of today) despite having one of the highest budgets in the world. You have to remember that it is not just the production fee that matters. You also have astronomical maintenance fees associated with these planes. How much does it cost for the F-22 to stay up in the air for just one hour? $44,000. Billions will be spent just to train the pilots and keep the planes themselves combat ready. Stealth fighters are not luxury cars. You can't just buy one and stow them away in some garage and hope that it impress your neighbors!

The US doesn't want to buy more F-22 because of its focus on nation building and antiterrorism. Now you may think the Russians have the same problem. But they don't. They don't care about civilian casualties or even mass slaughters. They are not nation building. No, they won't go lining up Chechens to be shot. But they won't hesitate to use overwhemling force on terrorists even if they resort to using children as human shields like the Beslan attack. Whenever terrorists attack the Russians will simply kill them civilian casualties be damned. Russians are not new to the terrorist game. Because of their experience in Afghanistan and with Chechens they have made many fundamental modifications to their equipment and tactics like Shtora, Arena. Modifications which are yet to be fully realized in Western tanks or equipment. Anyway the point is Russia will not be bankrupted by terrorism the way America might be.

And you forget the F-35. The F-35 is also a 5th generation plane and America will buy 2000 of them. So saying "America can only afford 187 F-22 so Russia will only be able to afford x more/less" isn't entirely honest. It ignores that Russia has always been able to produce "dangerous enough" technology at a fraction of American prices. Okay, so maybe PAK FA won't have a perfect bubble canopy, perhaps not even AESA, no helmet cueing system, etc. But not every PAK FA needs to be an AWACS, BVR makes pilot visibility less important, and so on. Meanwhile as long as you can make a plane with decent stealth and a decent equivalent to slammer missile, you can kill American fighters. This is not particularly technically difficult if you look in the F-22 thread (the argument in that thread seems to be who can produce the best fighter, and nobody questions the ability of Russia to build a "dangerous enough" fighter). Can third world nations or Russia get technological equivalents to the F-22 or F-35? Probably not. Can they get "dangerous enough" aircraft so American air superiority is not guaranteed? Yes, and any national security plan which doesn't take this into account is foolish.

As for maintainence much of that is in labor and licensing costs which can be minimized in dictatorships. It certainly does not cost 100k an hour to fly a Su-27.

The U.S. air force isn't invincible but it is pretty much the next best thing. The CVGBs aren't just there for show and the air force has gained great experience in the numerous air combats with nations equipped with Soviet weaponry. The 4th gen U.S. planes have engaged air targets over Libya, Iraq, and Bosnia and almost always came out on top (only air to air loss, I believe, was a F-18 shot down by a MIG-25 in Iraq). Can you say that the USAF (USNAF) are not serious threats to Chinese air security?

Yes I can for many reasons. First, training, doctrine and command and control are far more important when it comes to air defense. On paper, Saddam's air defense looked impressive in the Gulf War. Ten thousand SAMs should have been able to down far more coalition aircraft. But they didn't, because Saddam didn't consider air defense important and put all his best pilots into Mirages. Air defense was also spread out in a huge area, not focused and suffered from too strict command and control. So the result was "decapitation" strikes worked. Saddam's failures have been studied for years by everyone, especially the Chinese. Decapitation strikes won't work on Chinese and Americans are well aware of that.

Second for Americans air power is all or nothing. Do you think the American military or politicians or public can stomach a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 or even 10 to 1 kill loss ratio when it comes to their pilots? The answer if you're honest is no. So the big question is, whether China has "enough" air defense to destroy American fighters over Chinese soil or the Taiwan strait. If they have "enough" then air power is not a threat even if they have to trade 5 J-10's for 1 F-35. As long as you're capable of destroying American planes, even if its at an obscene loss ratio, American carriers are not a threat. Some simulations of 4th gen fighters versus 5th gen have the 4th gen fighters totally ignoring the fighters and going after the tanker aircraft and winning by fuel. So it is not impossible. The only way Americans can stomach high casualties is in a "total war" scenario or if Chinese do a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 type surprise attack. So in fact, Chinese security against Americans is totally in their own hands.

This is another reason why Americans are not a threat. Americans will never make the "first move" so as long as the Chinese wait until they can win and win overwhelmingly with regards to Taiwan, America is not a problem. Iraq was an outlier by a frat boy President who wanted to one up his daddy and only made possible because airplane cockpit doors weren't strong enough. There would have to be 10 Cho Sung Huis, 2 asian-led 9/11's and 2 Toyota brake recalls before the American public supported any sort of first strike on China. American racism against asians is near non-existent and where it does exist it is "positive" racism such as stereotypes of super intelligence and hard working. Face it: the events which led to the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive strike against Arab terrorist supporting nations were an astronomical occurence, and not just improbable to happen against China but near impossible.

I never said that China should completely relax the guards against the Russians (there are troops stationed next to the Russian and even North Korean borders). However I think it is extremely unlikely for them to turn against China anytime soon. Let's say Russia picks up the Democratic flag (unlikely under Putin's watch) and backstabs China during her confrontation with Taiwan. China will be destroyed, but so will Russia. Do you think the U.S. will get offer the bear a nice set of dentures after all of her teeth gets knocked out? Only morons would do that! For all we know we may have U.S. troops on Russian soil hunting down every last nuclear device just to make sure that the bombs don't fall into the wrong hands in the aftermath of the collapse of the Russian Federation.

Again the problem with this line of thinking is military procurement and nationalistic ambitions take years or decades to materialize. And by the time you move to counter them, it may be too late. The Russians backstabbed Iran for nothing more than a photo op with Obama.

It says that the most prevalent forms of racism in Russia are against Jewish people, South Caucasians and Central Asians.

Perhaps I am wrong about this. I have never lived in Russia so I do not know for certain.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Perhaps I am wrong about this. I have never lived in Russia so I do not know for certain.

Fair enough.

I think you're right about the fact that Americans (and Westerners in general) tend to be very welcoming towards East Asians.

 

[CardSharp]

^^^^^

Holy essay...