Warning: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-content/plugins/../../../../../../tmp/sessions/sess82388123.txt) is not within the allowed path(s): (/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs:/tmp) in /var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-settings.php on line 346
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321 Austin Bay Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:20:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-25821 Austin Bay Blog » Why Japan Continues to Re-Arm Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:10:40 +0000 /?p=321#comment-25821 [...] ked to a Harold Hutchison post (at StrategyPage) analyzing Japanese military strength (see “Japan As A Military Superpower”). The Japanese naval build-up isn’t a phenomenon that began s [...] […] ked to a Harold Hutchison post (at StrategyPage) analyzing Japanese military strength (see “Japan As A Military Superpower”). The Japanese naval build-up isn’t a phenomenon that began s […]

]]> http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-8496 John R Mon, 23 May 2005 20:12:47 +0000 /?p=321#comment-8496 Let's look at Tom Clancy's book from a few years back on this subject, "The Bear and the Dragon". As you may recall, it has for its plot the Chinese invasion of Siberia ("Operation Spring Dragon"). Clancy's book had Russia as a NATO member, but it's probably safe to say that this is not going to happen any time soon (if ever). Having said that, how likely would it be for the US to intervene on Russia's behalf in the event of such a Chinese offensive? Would it be in the US national interest to keep Siberia in Russian hands? Would the Russians accept such help from the US with their armed forces in their current, debilitated condition? My educated guess is, in such an eventuality, the US would almost certainly offer significant military assistance to the Russians. I can't imagine any Administration in the US being able to tell itself that it better served American interests by allowing China to annex, by force, such a huge area and the resources it contains. The Russians know that their military wouldnt be up to the challenge and would take whatever help they could get. Of course, never underestimate pride. This would be difficult enough situation for the US, with China's growing nuclear forces to contend with, not to mention the remoteness of the Siberian battlefield and the logistical nightmares in getting significant US forces there. However, in such a situation I just can't see the US standly idly by, doing nothing. As amply demonstrated in the last few years, US airpower has global reach and can have decisive influence in combat, even if deployed only in modest numbers. What does everyone else think? If China moves on Russia ala Clancy's "Spring Dragon", what would (or should) the US do? Let’s look at Tom Clancy’s book from a few years back on this subject, “The Bear and the Dragon”. As you may recall, it has for its plot the Chinese invasion of Siberia (”Operation Spring Dragon”). Clancy’s book had Russia as a NATO member, but it’s probably safe to say that this is not going to happen any time soon (if ever). Having said that, how likely would it be for the US to intervene on Russia’s behalf in the event of such a Chinese offensive? Would it be in the US national interest to keep Siberia in Russian hands? Would the Russians accept such help from the US with their armed forces in their current, debilitated condition? My educated guess is, in such an eventuality, the US would almost certainly offer significant military assistance to the Russians. I can’t imagine any Administration in the US being able to tell itself that it better served American interests by allowing China to annex, by force, such a huge area and the resources it contains. The Russians know that their military wouldnt be up to the challenge and would take whatever help they could get. Of course, never underestimate pride. This would be difficult enough situation for the US, with China’s growing nuclear forces to contend with, not to mention the remoteness of the Siberian battlefield and the logistical nightmares in getting significant US forces there. However, in such a situation I just can’t see the US standly idly by, doing nothing. As amply demonstrated in the last few years, US airpower has global reach and can have decisive influence in combat, even if deployed only in modest numbers. What does everyone else think? If China moves on Russia ala Clancy’s “Spring Dragon”, what would (or should) the US do?

]]> http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-8451 Winds of Change.NET Mon, 23 May 2005 04:34:45 +0000 /?p=321#comment-8451 <strong>Monday Winds of War: May 23/05</strong> china military spending; japanese superpower prospects; chavez wants nukes; uzbekistan; no more incentives for Iran; Iran tries Russia enrichment ploy; Saudis repeal gravity, boil ocean, eradicate terrorism; Palestinian population numbers; port securit... Monday Winds of War: May 23/05 china military spending; japanese superpower prospects; chavez wants nukes; uzbekistan; no more incentives for Iran; Iran tries Russia enrichment ploy; Saudis repeal gravity, boil ocean, eradicate terrorism; Palestinian population numbers; port securit…

]]> http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-8109 Rob Wed, 18 May 2005 10:23:58 +0000 /?p=321#comment-8109 Number 2, forget about South Korea. Unless they themselves are invaded they will not come to anyone else's aid, I'm afraid. Why, incidentally, is no one making what seems to me to be an obvious connection. China has abandoned its own version of international socialism for its own version of National Socialism. With private wealth, a totalitarian regime, a state-centered nationalistic religion, demonization of certain marginals (Christians, Falungong, Taiwanese, Japanese business interests), and expansionist tendancies, why do we not call the Chinese regime what it is...fascist? Don't they posess all the qualities of fascism? With regards to Siberia, what's the Han Chinese for Lebensraum? Number 2, forget about South Korea. Unless they themselves are invaded they will not come to anyone else’s aid, I’m afraid. Why, incidentally, is no one making what seems to me to be an obvious connection. China has abandoned its own version of international socialism for its own version of National Socialism. With private wealth, a totalitarian regime, a state-centered nationalistic religion, demonization of certain marginals (Christians, Falungong, Taiwanese, Japanese business interests), and expansionist tendancies, why do we not call the Chinese regime what it is…fascist? Don’t they posess all the qualities of fascism? With regards to Siberia, what’s the Han Chinese for Lebensraum?

]]> http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-8008 Harold C. Hutchison Tue, 17 May 2005 16:18:43 +0000 /?p=321#comment-8008 Thanks for the comments. I'll keep that in mind for future articles. Thanks for the comments. I’ll keep that in mind for future articles.

]]> http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-8002 James D Tue, 17 May 2005 15:56:29 +0000 /?p=321#comment-8002 Thanks for the reply. That is the PPP figure and is completely inappropriate for the kind of comparison you are performing. It is an artificial figure adjusted to reflect local buying conditions - for example, the price of eggs and milk in one country may be lower than another, so a person with equal salary in both has higher buying power in the cheaper country. If you add everything up and adjust it that is basically a very oversimplified version of PPP. It is inappropriate for comparing the actual economic size of countries and anyone who has done economics will tell you that. You need to compare at actual exchange rate. The number you quote is not incorrect it is just useless for your purposes. Look here for the data you need: http://www.economist.com/countries/China/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet Great article and I know this stuff is hard to understand but there is a BIG difference between PPP and actual GDP or GDP/capita!! thanks, James Thanks for the reply. That is the PPP figure and is completely inappropriate for the kind of comparison you are performing. It is an artificial figure adjusted to reflect local buying conditions - for example, the price of eggs and milk in one country may be lower than another, so a person with equal salary in both has higher buying power in the cheaper country. If you add everything up and adjust it that is basically a very oversimplified version of PPP. It is inappropriate for comparing the actual economic size of countries and anyone who has done economics will tell you that. You need to compare at actual exchange rate. The number you quote is not incorrect it is just useless for your purposes. Look here for the data you need: http://www.economist.com/countries/China/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet Great article and I know this stuff is hard to understand but there is a BIG difference between PPP and actual GDP or GDP/capita!! thanks, James

]]> http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-7968 Harold C. Hutchison Tue, 17 May 2005 14:10:59 +0000 /?p=321#comment-7968 I was using the 2000 GDP figures <a href="http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/globrank.asp?TBLS=PPP+Method+Tables&vCOUNTRY=17&TYPE=GRANK">here</a>. The latest figures fromt he CIA World Factbook show <a href="http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ch.html">China</a> has a GDP of $7.262 trillion and <a href="http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ja.html>Japan's</a> is at $3.745 trillion, at about the same ratio as quoted in the article. I'll stand by the figures. I was using the 2000 GDP figures here. The latest figures fromt he CIA World Factbook show China has a GDP of $7.262 trillion and /?p=321#comment-7967 I have to say that article is questionable at best. I couldn't find a feedback link so I'll say it here: "Japan’s economy is half that of China ($3.4 trillion to $6.7 trillion)" This is total rubbish and is inaccurate by a factor of 4-5. Official figures are sketchy at best but most estimates put their GDP in 2004 at about US$1.6 trillion. And it's not just a typo - the sentence beforehand indicates he really believes it. What's the point of reading the rest of a theory bult upon a fundamental error like that? James I have to say that article is questionable at best. I couldn’t find a feedback link so I’ll say it here: “Japan’s economy is half that of China ($3.4 trillion to $6.7 trillion)” This is total rubbish and is inaccurate by a factor of 4-5. Official figures are sketchy at best but most estimates put their GDP in 2004 at about US$1.6 trillion. And it’s not just a typo - the sentence beforehand indicates he really believes it. What’s the point of reading the rest of a theory bult upon a fundamental error like that? James

]]> http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-7909 Alan Kellogg Mon, 16 May 2005 22:45:24 +0000 /?p=321#comment-7909 Andy, think not of the Soviet army of yore, think of the Russian army of today. Ill-trained, ill-equiped, ill-led. And undermanned. Last I heard about half of those inducted in each year's draft don't even bother to show up, and Russia hasn't the resources to hunt them down. We select for the best for our military, the Russians select for the worst. China doesn't need to conquer Russia, all China needs to do is beat Russia. That would be a lot easier than you would expect. Defeat Russia's armies, occupy the Russian Far East, then negotiate a peace. China has the resources necessary to take the land, Russia does not have the resources necessary to defend it. As for Russia's vaunted military equipment. Your equipment is only as good as the people who maintain it. You can have the best equipment in the world, and have it used by the best people in the world, but if it's not maintained it's junk. I doubt Russia has the people she needs to maintain the equipment she has. And every year she loses more and more people, between emigration and death an average of one million per annum. Hell, the way things are going over there, I would not be surprised to learn that Russia has more in the way of unreliable nuclear missiles than she does reliable ones. That's the thing about dictatorships - even when the tyranny is de facto instead of de jure, they lie. They lie to their friends, they lie to their enemies, but worst of all they lie to themselves. Russia is lying to us, and lying to itself, and one day those lies, and our enabling of this behavior, will end in tragedy. Andy, think not of the Soviet army of yore, think of the Russian army of today. Ill-trained, ill-equiped, ill-led. And undermanned. Last I heard about half of those inducted in each year’s draft don’t even bother to show up, and Russia hasn’t the resources to hunt them down. We select for the best for our military, the Russians select for the worst. China doesn’t need to conquer Russia, all China needs to do is beat Russia. That would be a lot easier than you would expect. Defeat Russia’s armies, occupy the Russian Far East, then negotiate a peace. China has the resources necessary to take the land, Russia does not have the resources necessary to defend it. As for Russia’s vaunted military equipment. Your equipment is only as good as the people who maintain it. You can have the best equipment in the world, and have it used by the best people in the world, but if it’s not maintained it’s junk. I doubt Russia has the people she needs to maintain the equipment she has. And every year she loses more and more people, between emigration and death an average of one million per annum. Hell, the way things are going over there, I would not be surprised to learn that Russia has more in the way of unreliable nuclear missiles than she does reliable ones. That’s the thing about dictatorships - even when the tyranny is de facto instead of de jure, they lie. They lie to their friends, they lie to their enemies, but worst of all they lie to themselves. Russia is lying to us, and lying to itself, and one day those lies, and our enabling of this behavior, will end in tragedy.

]]> http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=321#comment-7849 JSAllison Mon, 16 May 2005 15:59:24 +0000 /?p=321#comment-7849 The army has long had it's germanophiles that are enamored of all things bundeswehr (actually wehrmacht). Back in '75 when I first reported to Ft Hood after training, the welcome to post sign had a silhouette of the Bundeswehr's Leopard MBT instead of the M60A1 that was then our standard MBT. I guess that there's a parallel to be found vis the USN and the descendants of the IJN. The army has long had it’s germanophiles that are enamored of all things bundeswehr (actually wehrmacht). Back in ‘75 when I first reported to Ft Hood after training, the welcome to post sign had a silhouette of the Bundeswehr’s Leopard MBT instead of the M60A1 that was then our standard MBT. I guess that there’s a parallel to be found vis the USN and the descendants of the IJN.

]]>