[Autumnleaf]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


There's the US's indispensable trading friend China throwing down the gauntlet. The sooner people recognize China as a threat the better. I never did buy into the accidents regarding lead painted toys and arsenic in drywall from China. But hey, it they don't get called on it and get away with playing dumb then more power to them.

[Distance]

Australia's a net exporter to China by a substantial percentage and a double digit net importer from the U.S..

Should be interesting to see whether they listen to the supplier or the customer.

[Tristan]

No one would want to make such a decision. It may be in the US' power to keep Australians from having to do it. We won't come to blows with China as long as we don't default on debts, cheat them by printing dollars, and continue to trade. The commerce has to stay strong.

Of course it would help if the Chinese weren't such blustering, militaristic assholes in search of more Taiwans, but that's life.

[Thinker]

Interesting that they see it as a them or us decision.....Hmmmmm

The relationships are very different and can be maintained as they are.
China talks like this all the time to Australia....they are just keeping the dynamics of the relationship high on the agenda.

Australia's wealth is heavily tied to China's growth.
We have a close almost symbiotic trading relationship.

Defence is different...and the Chinese know that.

[Causa Mortis]

Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. There's the US's indispensable trading friend China throwing down the gauntlet. The sooner people recognize China as a threat the better. I never did buy into the accidents regarding lead painted toys and arsenic in drywall from China. But hey, it they don't get called on it and get away with playing dumb then more power to them.

China is not a threat until it can a) hope to protect shipping lanes against a US air/sea embargo and b) find enough demand for low skill products.

---------- Post added 05-17-2012 at 07:14 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Thinker To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Interesting that they see it as a them or us decision.....Hmmmmm The relationships are very different and can be maintained as they are. China talks like this all the time to Australia....they are just keeping the dynamics of the relationship high on the agenda. Australia's wealth is heavily tied to China's growth. We have a close almost symbiotic trading relationship. Defence is different...and the Chinese know that.

General Tiny Penis is just making noise. They can't start conflict with ths US, much less the US/UK/JAP allaince that would likely form in any imagineable scenario.

[Distance]

What's interesting is that China's net export figure has dropped approximately 100 billion between 2010 to 2011 due to heavier reliance on imports. In March of this year, they've also cut import duties on certain energy products and raw materials which means demand will be increasing for Australia's iron ore.

[Causa Mortis]

	Originally Posted by Tristan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course it would help if the Chinese weren't such blustering, militaristic assholes in search of more Taiwans, but that's life.

The US is radically below its long-run trend NGDP, it has decisive advantages in almost every area of technology, it has significant numerical advatnage in modern platforms in the air and at sea, and won't for very much longer.

I say: bring it, the US can use the NGDP shock and wouldn't have any trouble winning an air/sea battle.

I'd prefer it happen now when the outcome is virtually guaranteed and when the population is rather docile, rather than when China's economy hits it first stumbling block, blames the US, and oops, yeah, more than a quarter of their men are...without partner.

[Vermillion]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The sooner people recognize China as a threat the better. I never did buy into the accidents regarding lead painted toys and arsenic in drywall from China.

That theory is right up there with the one about George Bush Sr.'s face morphing into a lizard...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[MechanicalSun]

About time for Australia to stop playing double agent. Allowing increased USA military presence while being having China as most important trade partner. Had to happen.

China will overpower the USA in about 10 years also militarily.
The Asia-Pacific region is already under China's economic/military hegemony(deadly submarine fleet).
That worries the USA forcing them to play the "power games" in the region.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by MechanicalSun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	About time for Australia to stop playing double agent. Allowing increased USA military presence while being having China as most important trade partner. Had to happen.

There's no real pressure for Australia to choose. What's China going to do, quit buying raw materials from Australia? Good luck with that, their economy is reliant on raw material imports from Australia. Without them their low skill manufacturing economy will grind to a halt. It's in Australia's best interest to balance the US and China's regional influence against one another. As long as neither totally dominates the region Australia can get the best deal from both.

	China will overpower the USA in about 10 years also militarily. The Asia-Pacific region is already under China's economic/military hegemony(deadly submarine fleet).

Their "deadly submarine fleet" primarily consists of short range diesel subs. Their most advanced nuclear subs are about as sophisticated as 1970's Russian technology. They're nowhere near the US in terms of a blue water navy.

China hasn't even surpassed the US GDP, they lack the existing hardware stockpiles and it will take decades of concentrated purchasing to catch up. This also ignores the huge gap in spending that still exists. China can potentially eclipse the US, but only after several decades and with the kind of expenditures that killed the USSR and has saddled the US with a mountain of debt.

China's game isn't to eclipse the US in military strength, it's to maintain sufficient force to bully other nations within their influence sphere while maintaining deterrence against an open conflict with the US. The reason for all this is to maintain economic growth because their domestic stability relies on it.

	That worries the USA forcing them to play the "power games" in the region.

Pay attention: both are playing "power games". What do you think this demand is about?

[INTelliJent]

As I have stated numerous times now: American military tech is aging, highly overrated, and extremely vulnerable. The US military is not equipped or trained to fight a war with a foe who can take out it's GPS satellites and/or deny it Air Supremacy. Unless it decides to go MAD. The majority of R&D expenditures in the last 15 years have gone towards occupation tech, not war fighting tech. The game has changed, and the people who get their jollies from tank battles, and other grand war imagery from fighting between major powers, are going to have to stick to the History channel.

[Causa Mortis]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What's interesting is that China's net export figure has dropped approximately 100 billion between 2010 to 2011 due to heavier reliance on imports. In March of this year, they've also cut import duties on certain energy products and raw materials which means demand will be increasing for Australia's iron ore.

You have to rememer that balance of trade is symbiotic between microeconomic and macroeconomic forces. Portfolio demand for yuan-based assets is rising as Europe and the rest of the world except America are imploding, which will place downward pressure on net exports.

---------- Post added 05-18-2012 at 06:07 PM ----------

Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As I have stated numerous times now: American military tech is aging, highly overrated, and extremely vulnerable. The US military is not equipped or trained to fight a war with a foe who can take out it's GPS satellites and/or deny it Air Supremacy. Unless it decides to go MAD. The majority of R&D expenditures in the last 15 years have gone towards occupation tech, not war fighting tech. The game has changed, and the people who get their jollies from tank battles, and other grand war imagery from fighting between major powers, are going to have to stick to the History channel.

The Chinese have no substantive answer for:

1. The B-2
2. The Tomahawk
3. The Los Angeles, much less Seawolf
4. The F-22 (probably)
5. The fleet carrier (probably)

I have no doubt that they could take Taiwain, but they can't project power as far as the Spratlys against even the US alone.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You have to rememer that balance of trade is symbiotic between microeconomic and macroeconomic forces. Portfolio demand for yuan-based assets is rising as Europe and the rest of the world except America are imploding, which will place downward pressure on net exports.

China's export partners are also putting pressure on them to reciprocate which is why they cut import duties on products beneficial to their ability to manufacture and export.

[MechanicalSun]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There's no real pressure for Australia to choose. What's China going to do, quit buying raw materials from Australia? Good luck with that, their economy is reliant on raw material imports from Australia. Without them their low skill manufacturing economy will grind to a halt. It's in Australia's best interest to balance the US and China's regional influence against one another. As long as neither totally dominates the region Australia can get the best deal from both. Their "deadly submarine fleet" primarily consists of short range diesel subs. Their most advanced nuclear subs are about as sophisticated as 1970's Russian technology. They're nowhere near the US in terms of a blue water navy. China hasn't even surpassed the US GDP, they lack the existing hardware stockpiles and it will take decades of concentrated purchasing to catch up. This also ignores the huge gap in spending that still exists. China can potentially eclipse the US, but only after several decades and with the kind of expenditures that killed the USSR and has saddled the US with a mountain of debt. China's game isn't to eclipse the US in military strength, it's to maintain sufficient force to bully other nations within their influence sphere while maintaining deterrence against an open conflict with the US. The reason for all this is to maintain economic growth because their domestic stability relies on it. Pay attention: both are playing "power games". What do you think this demand is about?

regarding:

There's no real pressure for Australia to choose. What's China going to do, quit buying raw materials from Australia? Good luck with that, their economy is reliant on raw material imports from Australia. Without them their low skill manufacturing economy will grind to a halt. It's in Australia's best interest to balance the US and China's regional influence against one another. As long as neither totally dominates the region Australia can get the best deal from both.

There is a place called South America, which has a fairly amount of raw materials and is projected/agreed to become China's main mineral supplier
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Objectivity isn't one or your strengths it seems.
Time to wear the Captain America uniform? and "America's #1!" holds lol.
And no, I won't elaborate.

[Vulture]

can china make more tanks/jets than the US can? ifnot, can they in 10 years?

i mean, fullon war economy production for the countries, not peacetime supplemental production.

can china produce more soldiers than the US can? ifnot can they in 10 years?


----

no, the US is in trouble if china wishes war.

[HackerX]

Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There's no real pressure for Australia to choose. What's China going to do, quit buying raw materials from Australia? Good luck with that, their economy is reliant on raw material imports from Australia. Without them their low skill manufacturing economy will grind to a halt. It's in Australia's best interest to balance the US and China's regional influence against one another. As long as neither totally dominates the region Australia can get the best deal from both.

Yup. Australian mines can't dig the stuff fast enough out of the ground to keep up with Chinese demand. The Australian government is desperately looking for a way out of the two phase economy it's stuck in at the moment. If it does come down to China vs US (hint: it won't) there's no way China is going to come out on top of that decision any time soon.

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pay attention: both are playing "power games". What do you think this demand is about?

China is just trying to screw a better deal on the Australian exports. As per usual. Trying it on with the new foreign minister perhaps.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Chinese have no substantive answer for: 1. The B-2 2. The Tomahawk 3. The Los Angeles, much less Seawolf 4. The F-22 (probably) 5. The fleet carrier (probably) I have no doubt that they could take Taiwain, but they can't project power as far as the Spratlys against even the US alone.

Like I said. Aging, and the F22 is marginally better (when it isn't having problems) than the F15/18 in respect to actual mission capability/versatility, and none of the US airborne platforms want to go anywhere near modern SAM sites. It's one of the big reasons Iran and Syria are still only on the receiving end of covert ops and sabre-rattling, while Iraq and Libya were wasted.

Since we are talking about AUS and China as well:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Could the US still do serious damage to China despite the SAMs? Most likely. But serious ground forces would never get in, and if they did, they would have little to no air support, thusly rendering them useless. US forces tooks days/weeks to clear Iraqi cities of ragtag opposition with heavy use of air support.

Now, every year that confrontation is delayed, China continues to buy up global capital and increase their military tech, but in ways that are looking forward into the 21st century, not leaning on outdated platforms(and thusly strategy) from the world wars of the last century.

The US does have the advantage currently in drone tech, which is going to have to replace manned flights at some point. Manned flight is simply too expensive to produce and acquire to be used in battle (in the current economic reality). SAMs can fulfill the role Fighters once filled in Air Defense much more cheaply and effectively. Drones can fulfill the role of attack more cheaply and effectively.

The F22/35 are hubristic wastes by a Pentagon leadership still stuck in 20th century thinking.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by MechanicalSun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	regarding: There is a place called South America, which has a fairly amount of raw materials and is projected/agreed to become China's main mineral supplier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

China has cut deals for long term oil contracts with Venezuela but oil isn't one of the things Australia exports in significant amounts to China. Other raw materials, like iron or copper, that China is projected to receive from South America are in addition to imports from Africa and Australia. These are deals to meet future demand, not supplant existing sources.

South America lacks the Australian coal China's entire energy infrastructure is built on. Unless China could cut a deal with the US or Canada to rapidly expand their coal production and exports to compensate (unlikely for a variety of reasons) they're not going to have much luck meeting their coal needs outside of Australia.

Brazil is the only major player in iron production outside of Australia. Due to the distances involved and the competition over Brazilian iron export that already exist, attempting to meet their iron needs with just Brazil would make the price of China's exported goods skyrocket. To abandon Australia would be to abandon their only significant advantage in the global market and their rapid growth would falter and die.


tl;dr: China can't cut Australian minerals out and still maintain their rate of economic growth.

	Objectivity isn't one or your strengths it seems. Time to wear the Captain America uniform? and "America's #1!" holds lol. And no, I won't elaborate.

Of course you won't, you wouldn't want me to point out any more bad assumptions you've made.

[MechanicalSun]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course you won't, you wouldn't want me to point out any more bad assumptions you've made.

No, it's just my standard attitude towards biased people. Not my job to teach/guide narrow-minded people.
Too much effort for low chance of success/reward.

In short: Keep living in your "american dream"/bubble dude.

[thod]

Without the inflow of Australian minerals the Chinese factories close and they suffer rioting. Factories can be set up anywhere, including Australia. Seems to me that it is Australia that is grasping China's balls.

[Causa Mortis]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Like I said. Aging, and the F22 is marginally better (when it isn't having problems) than the F15/18 in respect to actual mission capability/versatility

Calling the F-22 "marginally better" is silly. Its a pretty big leap forward in basically every critical category.

I actually don't think it makes sense to substitute that much capital for labor, since labor isn't terribly scarce in the US anymore, but its a radically better platform.

	and none of the US airborne platforms want to go anywhere near modern SAM sites.

Durr...yes, you generally want to avoid SAMs as a pilot.

	Could the US still do serious damage to China despite the SAMs? Most likely. But serious ground forces would never get in, and if they did, they would have little to no air support, thusly rendering them useless. US forces tooks days/weeks to clear Iraqi cities of ragtag opposition with heavy use of air support.

Why on earth would you invade mainland China with ground forces? You would cut them off from the international trade they've become so reliant upon, particularly in energy, use a selective air campaign in a selective campaign, and use firebombing if a strategic conflict. You also could go first-strike nuclear with China due to their very limited strategic arsenal. You'd also perhaps use selective ground incursions to foment terror and disrupt production, at times and places of your choosing since you controlled the sea and the air.

As it sits right now and until the Chinese have an answer for at least the Los Angeles class, they would have no chance to winning a strategic conflict with the United States. Until they develop real responses to various platforms, you'd just have 2020 versions of the Opium Wars all over again.

[INTelliJent]

	Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Calling the F-22 "marginally better" is silly. Its a pretty big leap forward in basically every critical category. I actually don't think it makes sense to substitute that much capital for labor, since labor isn't terribly scarce in the US anymore, but its a radically better platform.

It's a more expensive platform. It has a lower load-out capability unless it sacrifices it's stealth capability (defeating that expensive waste), which is questionable to start with.


Relevant link to the F-22 overhype:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Durr...yes, you generally want to avoid SAMs as a pilot.

Of course. So you agree.

Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why on earth would you invade mainland China with ground forces? You would cut them off from the international trade they've become so reliant upon, particularly in energy, use a selective air campaign in a selective campaign, and use firebombing if a strategic conflict. You also could go first-strike nuclear with China due to their very limited strategic arsenal. You'd also perhaps use selective ground incursions to foment terror and disrupt production, at times and places of your choosing since you controlled the sea and the air. As it sits right now and until the Chinese have an answer for at least the Los Angeles class, they would have no chance to winning a strategic conflict with the United States. Until they develop real responses to various platforms, you'd just have 2020 versions of the Opium Wars all over again.

The lack of military strategy training and study shown in this section of the post is summed up in this sentence. Fortunately you do not have access to the "big red button", since you haven't even followed the basic game scenarios already covered recently on this very board as to why a nuclear launch against a non/limited nuclear country is not going to work.

Chinese/Russian previous generation SAM tech is completely capable of knocking any of the US' primary airborne payload delivering platforms out of the sky. The US cannot afford to lose any of those platforms. This is why the US isn't going into Syria/Iran yet, and most definitely won't go against Russia/China (nukes being another reason). As soon as one side started losing badly the gloves would come off. So they are content to fight proxy wars, on multiple levels. This AUS situation being one of them.

[Causa Mortis]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course. So you agree.

Not in the slightest. Iraq had a very impressive network of SAMs in Gulf War 1. It was dismantled in a few days, as I recall, with a combination of cruise missiles and stealth platforms. It would probably take a few weeks or maybe even 2 months to do the same to China's SAM network. Meanwhile, you just strangle them through their dependence on trade with the LA and - what - two of eleven fleet CVs? Then when the SAM network is down, you stratbomb them with B-52s. Its not rocket science.

	The lack of military strategy training and study shown in this section of the post is summed up in this sentence. Fortunately you do not have access to the "big red button", since you haven't even followed the basic game scenarios already covered recently on this very board as to why a nuclear launch against a non/limited nuclear country is not going to work.

I presented it as one option. I wouldn't use a first-nuclear strike for Taiwan. I probably would for South Korea though. They have 66 land-based ICBMs, and I'm quite sure that even the LA can track their boomers. The US probably has the assets to eliminate 66 ground based ICBMs in a matter of minutes of each other. Throw in even a limited missile defense shield or two and presto - first strike is on the table again. I'm not saying its The Option, I'm saying its an option.

Chinese/Russian previous generation SAM tech is completely capable of knocking any of the US' primary airborne payload delivering platforms out of the sky. The US cannot afford to lose any of those platforms. This is why the US isn't going into Syria/Iran yet, and most definitely won't go against Russia/China (nukes being another reason). As soon as one side started losing badly the gloves would come off. So they are content to fight proxy wars, on multiple levels. This AUS situation being one of them.

:yawn: there's an answer for SAM sites. That Iran and Syria fail cost/benefit analyses of potential conflicts is granted. That having the newest generation of SAMs = invulnerability is ridiculous.

[raimius]

	Originally Posted by INTelliJent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's a more expensive platform. It has a lower load-out capability unless it sacrifices it's stealth capability (defeating that expensive waste), which is questionable to start with. Relevant link to the F-22 overhype: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

What aircraft payloads are you comparing the F-22 against? The F-22s air-to-air payload is quite respectable.
Stealth doesn't make aircraft undetectable. It is called "low observable" not "invisible."
As to the linked article, besides its factual errors, it shows a certain ignorance toward air combat and the USAF's use of technology in its tactics.

[joliet]

Which is why we need more effective government regulations on corporations. Just to counter the unsophisticated remarks of, "We need to deregulate e'erything."