Time To Become Independent Of China.....

[Wu Wei]

.....for any critical products. Of course, we should still be able
to buy unimportant products from them, eg, bathrobes, pencils,
rubber duckies.
It's a relatively national security measure to limit strategic items
to be sourced domestically & from reliable allies.
‘Play dirty’: Chinese official threatens US medical supplies over Huawei fight

Some might say the Chinese cannot be trusted. I'd never
say such a thing. The can be trusted to behave this way.

Before you-know-who arrives to call this racist, it is about
the government of that country acting against our interest.
It is not about the race of most people in China.
(Yes, there are people other than Han Chinese.)

First let me say 洋鬼子(Yángguǐzi)

now allow me to say.....well that's racist....economically sensible.... but still racist.

China (meaning the government) is very good at telling folks exactly what they want to hear, and then doing what they want anyways. And then when called, making threats, sometimes empty, sometimes not

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

China is developing first strike weapons (eg, hypersonic missiles,
nuclear submarines) capable of hitting any target on the globe.
The continental US is within range.
What does this mean regarding this thread?
We should work on guarding national security.

We all know that you can not win wars with strike weapons. it require boots on the ground.
Those weapons most certainly do exist, but they are a deterrent not a threat of war.
A war using strike weapons has no conclusion.
All militaries and government know this.

The USA also has intercontinental ballistic missiles. but perhaps fewer but more advanced atomic submarines.
as far as has been reported China has fewer nuclear powered submarines. but more non nuclear ones.
Little is known about the newer Collaboration between Russia and China on non nuclear subs but they might be AIP or Lithium battery driven.
This is interesting
China Can Sink American Ships Faster Than America Can Replace Them

 

[Revoltingest]

First let me say 洋鬼子(Yángguǐzi)

now allow me to say.....well that's racist....economically sensible.... but still racist.

China (meaning the government) is very good at telling folks exactly what they want to hear, and then doing what they want anyways. And then when called, making threats, sometimes empty, sometimes not

Of course I'm racist.
I freely admit being a zhen hwai yang guizi too.
But even racists can make cogent arguments.

The China threat looks real & increasing.
Time to secure critical products & raw materials from better sources.

 

[Wu Wei]

Of course I'm racist.
I freely admit being a zhen hwai yang guizi too.
But even racists can make cogent arguments.

The China threat looks real & increasing.
Time to secure critical products & raw materials from better sources.

Its real, but I am not sure how much of a threat it actually is. They are also very good at making things worse than they are for their own purposes, but they also tend to not make a lot of empty threats, it i just how much is it economically feasible for them to carry through with said threat. And everything is economy in China. But I do agree we need to bring much of the manufacturing home.

 

[Revoltingest]

We all know that you can not win wars with strike weapons. it require boots on the ground.

I'm not considering winning a war with China.
(I've no need to beat them. That would be a horrendous result for both.)
Rather, it's about avoiding &/or surviving military conflict.

Those weapons most certainly do exist, but they are a deterrent not a threat of war.
A war using strike weapons has no conclusion.
All militaries and government know this.

You're looking at this very differently from my perspective.
MAD is not 100% a deterrent....it can itself be a cause as
our history with the USSR shows.
One example of several....
1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident - Wikipedia

The USA also has intercontinental ballistic missiles. but perhaps fewer but more advanced atomic submarines.
as far as has been reported China has fewer nuclear powered submarines. but more non nuclear ones.
Little is known about the newer Collaboration between Russia and China on non nuclear subs but they might be AIP or Lithium battery driven.
This is interesting
China Can Sink American Ships Faster Than America Can Replace Them

Your strategic analysis is...excuse my bluntness....not coherent.
One cannot analyze potential conflicts by examining a few weapons
& a few scenarios. War will proceed in unpredictable ways because
each side will find success in doing what isn't expected by the enemy.

All I'm advocating for is doing something useful in a limited area,
ie, sourcing critical things from more reliable sources. To wade
into details of weapons & tactics is merely distracting.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its real, but I am not sure how much of a threat it actually is. They are also very good at making things worse than they are for their own purposes, but they also tend to not make a lot of empty threats, it i just how much is it economically feasible for them to carry through with said threat. And everything is economy in China. But I do agree we need to bring much of the manufacturing home.

Not only can we not be sure of the nature of the China threat,
we can't even be sure of what the continuing chain of Presidents
will do. I look at potentials & likelihoods. Certainty is for religion.

But reliable sourcing of critical supplies is one thing that appears
worth doing, & it has minimal downsides. I can be certain of one
thing....it's less provocative than US naval exercises in the South
China Sea.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't understand this.
Who's been lynched recently?

I know perfectly well that you are not so dumb as to not know the difference between Lynching and lynching mentality.
I even went as far as giving an example of what I meant.

As to arbitrary .... either would work. sort of.

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"an arbitrary decision".
2. (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
   "a country under arbitrary government"
   
   

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm not considering winning a war with China.
(I've no need to beat them. That would be a horrendous result for both.)
Rather, it's about avoiding &/or surviving military conflict.

You're looking at this very differently from my perspective.
MAD is not 100% a deterrent....it can itself be a cause as
our history with the USSR shows.
One example of several....
1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident - Wikipedia

Your strategic analysis is...excuse my bluntness....not coherent.
One cannot analyze potential conflicts by examining a few weapons
& a few scenarios. War will proceed in unpredictable ways because
each side will find success in doing what isn't expected by the enemy.

All I'm advocating for is doing something useful in a limited area,
ie, sourcing critical things from more reliable sources. To wade
into details of weapons & tactics is merely distracting.

The Analysis has been done and not by me But by American think tanks and authorities. It has been extensively written about and published.
Such as this link I gave you.

War and conflict is more likely to be avoided by ever closer links not ever greater distancing. ...Siamese twins rarely fight to the death.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know perfectly well that you are not so dumb as to not know the difference between Lynching and lynching mentality.

But I am too dumb to grok your strange analogy.
You've yet to explain it.

As to arbitrary .... either would work. sort of.

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"an arbitrary decision".
2. (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
   "a country under arbitrary government"

If you did indeed know that definition when you used the word,
then you've misapplied it.
The correlation between leaders who pursue war, & voters
re-electing those leaders with such war records is germane
to the question of why we wage so many wars.
We have the correlation, ie, voting for war mongers.
We have the theory of causation, ie, voters see these wars as just,
& vote for leaders who pursue them.
You disagree, preferring the MIC conspiracy theory, but my
argument is hardly "arbitrary".

What argument & evidence do you have for the conspiracy theory?
Something more than some people make money during war?
Name companies & leaders. Provide evidence of collusion or
coercion.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Analysis has been done and not by me But by American think tanks and authorities. It has been extensively written about and published.
Such as this link I gave you.

I missed that link.
(Many posts to respond too....I don't see everything.)
Could you re-post it?
Or better yet, provide your own argument?

War and conflict is more likely to be avoided by ever closer links not ever greater distancing. ...Siamese twins rarely fight to the death.

You seem to believe that I want to sever links with China.
I've tried to be clear that independence is solely about critical
products & material. That would still leave the bulk of trade.

To re-state....
Independence from China is solely about critical products & material.
That would still leave the bulk of trade.

 

[Wu Wei]

Not only can we not be sure of the nature of the China threat,
we can't even be sure of what the continuing chain of Presidents
will do. I look at potentials & likelihoods. Certainty is for religion.

But reliable sourcing of critical supplies is one thing that appears
worth doing, & it has minimal downsides. I can be certain of one
thing....it's less provocative than US naval exercises in the South
China Sea.

Yup

 

[Stevicus]

I don't understand this.
Who's been lynched recently?
Are you blaming government or voters?

"Arbitrary" doesn't mean what you think.

And yet, they continued re-electing leaders who pursued the wars,
eg, Obama. In his first campaign, he promised to end them.
After violating his promise, he won re-election handily.

You say there's no causation behind this correlation.
But you offer no evidence whatsoever for the MIC conspiracy
theory except that some people make money.
Who among them is controlling the President & Congress
to direct them to start & continually wage these wars?
Do you have any documentation of these directives to leaders?
If this conspiracy exists, why aren't Bush or Obama or any of
the members of Congress outing the conspiracy?
Surely there must be someone somewhere who feels shame
at starting wars because some defense contractor told them too.
It's like the claim of faked Moon landings....too many people
must be in on it for all to remain silent about the vast conspiracy.

I think the main evidence one can see is pretty obvious. It's all the fearmongering which has taken place over the course of decades. Red Scares, instructional films about what to do in a nuclear war, setting up fallout shelters, WW3 films, all kinds of pamphlets and propaganda about how evil the Soviets were, etc. It was everywhere. I grew up with it even before I knew what it was.

People bought into national security perceptions touted by so-called "experts" who decided that if we didn't stop communism in this place or that place, it would spread like wildfire and cause "free" and "democratic" governments to fall like dominoes. This was the kind of hogwash which was spewed out for decades, and the public bought into it - although more and more people started to oppose and reject it - at least temporarily, until Reagan was elected. Then it started all up again.

Whether it was due to some kind of secret plot by the military and defense industry, that's not entirely certain. One could say that they're just doing their jobs, and the source of the propaganda and fearmongering may be elsewhere. That's possible, but it's clear that it's the fearmongering which is influencing the voters and their choices in candidates.

Another thing to mention is that, by and large, both major parties have operated in concert with each other on most foreign policy issues and national security perceptions. There may be slight shades of difference, some might take a more peaceful, diplomatic approach as opposed to outright warmongering. But both parties agree on the same basic policy, at least in terms of America's role in the world and our diplomatic and military allies (and adversaries).

The fearmongering also led to a great deal of internal peer pressure, since not giving full 100% support to America's military actions is often perceived as "unpatriotic" or "sympathizing with the enemy," which is tantamount to an accusation of treason. People are afraid of being ostracized as some kind of "traitor," so they go along to get along. It's gotten better since the earlier days, but some of that mentality still lingers around the periphery.

I don't think the voters necessarily want war, at least not on any active, conscious level. But they are often easily duped, and they don't have much backbone to stand up and question those they regard as "authorities." The average citizen had no way of personally checking if Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs in Iraq, so they just have to "trust" what the government was telling them.

Whatever semblance there is of a "peace movement" in this country needs to be revitalized and reinvigorated. If more people don't want to support that at the same level they did 50 years ago, then I would agree that one can't really blame the defense industry or the military, in and of itself. They don't have that much power, although I guess they could have some shared interests with other factions which might want to keep the U.S. population misinformed and in a state of fear. Both the defense industry and military do benefit from that, so theories about the MIC aren't totally unfounded. But they're also part of the population which is routinely misinformed and misguided.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But I am too dumb to grok your strange analogy.
You've yet to explain it.

If you did indeed know that definition when you used the word,
then you've misapplied it.
The correlation between leaders who pursue war, & voters
re-electing those leaders with such war records is germane
to the question of why we wage so many wars.
We have the correlation, ie, voting for war mongers.
We have the theory of causation, ie, voters see these wars as just,
& vote for leaders who pursue them.
You disagree, preferring the MIC conspiracy theory, but my
argument is hardly "arbitrary".

What argument & evidence do you have for the conspiracy theory?
Something more than some people make money during war?
Name companies & leaders. Provide evidence of collusion or
coercion.

I had never head of MIC before this thread. An do not know what it stands for.
Neither do I follow conspiracy theories.

I do not believe that there is a conspiracy In this case.
It is simply a matter of suggesting that people and businesses tend to act in their self interest. And do their best to make what influence they have count.
In the case of the arms industry, they are almost totally dependent on the military of this and allied nations, who in turn can only spend what their paymasters allow them to. The driver of this is wars and fear of wars.
The connection between wars, arms and money is obvious. The driver of the wars and fears less so.

However it is clearly in most people's interest to have peace.
But when you look for the alternative drivers , the only obvious ones to benefit from wars or fear of war, are politicians, the military, war material suppliers and manufacturers.
These are all very likely to be pushing In the same direction with out any collusion at all.
But a little collusion would certainly help.
Talk of peace and disarmament is an anathema to all of them. And the news is full of their objections whenever cuts to military spending is suggested.

 

[esmith]

We all know that you can not win wars with strike weapons. it require boots on the ground.
Those weapons most certainly do exist, but they are a deterrent not a threat of war.
A war using strike weapons has no conclusion.
All militaries and government know this.

The USA also has intercontinental ballistic missiles. but perhaps fewer but more advanced atomic submarines.
as far as has been reported China has fewer nuclear powered submarines. but more non nuclear ones.
Little is known about the newer Collaboration between Russia and China on non nuclear subs but they might be AIP or Lithium battery driven.
This is interesting
China Can Sink American Ships Faster Than America Can Replace Them

You do realize that a diesel electric submarine poses greater threat than a nuclear powered fast attack submarine, the diesel electric is quieter than a nuclear sub when it is running on the electric motors, and you can build considerably more diesel/electric boats for the cost of one Virginia class fast attack. The only advantage that a nuclear has is it is faster, can run submerged for considerably longer time, and doesn't need refueling for years.
A US aircraft carrier can project power almost anywhere, the only problem is the CSG requirements for fueling of the conventional ships within the CSG. The advent of hypersonic cruise missile makes the carrier a BFT. China just debuted their DF-17 missile this year.
To war game a scenario between the US and China is beyond the scope of this forum. But it would not be pretty.

 

[Revoltingest]

I Both the defense industry and military do benefit from that, so theories about the MIC aren't totally unfounded. But they're also part of the population which is routinely misinformed and misguided.

But there'd have to be control extending from industry &
the military into leadership. I've asked repeatedly for
evidence of this, & none has been presented.

Is the population misinformed & misguided just because
they disagree with you or me about the wars? Liberals
tell me how misguided & misinformed I am...very often.
Yet they elect the war mongers, passing over the
peaceniks in their own party in the primaries.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But there'd have to be control extending from industry &
the military into leadership. I've asked repeatedly for
evidence of this, & none has been presented.

Is the population misinformed & misguided just because

they disagree with you or me about the wars? Liberals
tell me how misguided & misinformed I am...very often.
Yet they elect the war mongers, passing over the
peaceniks in their own party in the primaries.

It would be unthinkable for the American electorate to support a peace ticket.
Can you even imagine a pacifist president.
The office of President includes that of commander in chief of the armed forces of the USA.
However it makes no mention of the president being peace maker in chief.
Even if that would be in the best interest of the country.

President Roosevelt tried to keep America out of WW2, but circumstances
Proved otherwise.. since then the USA has been in almost constant conflict.

It was founded in conflict. It has been moulded by conflict, conflict is in its very nature.
It will probably end it's days in conflict.

It is on a mission of self destruction.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had never head of MIC before this thread. An do not know what it stands for.
Neither do I follow conspiracy theories.

MIC = Military Industrial Complex
It's the conspiracy theory you're pushing here.
People who believe in conspiracy theories never think theirs is
a conspiracy theory. But you have the conspirators, & you lack
evidence...so it is what it is.

I do not believe that there is a conspiracy In this case.
It is simply a matter of suggesting that people and businesses tend to act in their self interest. And do their best to make what influence they have count.

This is just using different words to describe the conspiracy.

In the case of the arms industry, they are almost totally dependent on the military of this and allied nations, who in turn can only spend what their paymasters allow them to. The driver of this is wars and fear of wars.
The connection between wars, arms and money is obvious. The driver of the wars and fears less so.

You've given a motive, but no details about the
mechanism nor evidence of conspiring or coercion.

However it is clearly in most people's interest to have peace.

My liberal friends often tell me that people don't
always vote in their self interest. I agree.

But when you look for the alternative drivers , the only obvious ones to benefit from wars or fear of war, are politicians, the military, war material suppliers and manufacturers.

It's not clear that the military benefits from war.
I say they benefit only from uneasy peace, ie, a cold war.

You've been claiming this as a motive for several posts,
& I accept it as valid. But you've not shown that this
results in their steering government towards war.

These are all very likely to be pushing In the same direction with out any collusion at all.
But a little collusion would certainly help.
Talk of peace and disarmament is an anathema to all of them. And the news is full of their objections whenever cuts to military spending is suggested.

You have motive, & you have motive.
All conspiracy theories do, eg, faked Moon landings,
the Covid 19 conspiracy to cow the populace, 5G internet
is designed to cause Covid 19.
What they...you...lack is evidence based cogent reasoning.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would be unthinkable for the American electorate to support a peace ticket.

I think it could happen.
When the Vietnam war became widely disliked, we had
the opportunity. I'm optimistic, but not holding my breath.

 

[Stevicus]

But there'd have to be control extending from industry &
the military into leadership. I've asked repeatedly for
evidence of this, & none has been presented.

Is the population misinformed & misguided just because
they disagree with you or me about the wars? Liberals
tell me how misguided & misinformed I am...very often.
Yet they elect the war mongers, passing over the
peaceniks in their own party in the primaries.

Yes, that's what it's come to in recent times. I think in a lot of cases, the population might be misinformed about the state of the world, or at least given a very one-sided version of it. And some of the pretexts for war have been rather shaky, such as WMDs in Iraq, Gulf of Tonkin. How are people supposed to know otherwise? They have to rely upon and trust what the government is telling them, so is it the government's fault for lying or is it the voters' fault for believing them?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, that's what it's come to in recent times. I think in a lot of cases, the population might be misinformed about the state of the world, or at least given a very one-sided version of it. And some of the pretexts for war have been rather shaky, such as WMDs in Iraq, Gulf of Tonkin. How are people supposed to know otherwise? They have to rely upon and trust what the government is telling them, so is it the government's fault for lying or is it the voters' fault for believing them?

It's not always complex. Voters can look at how past wars turned
out, & who supported them. Then vote against those candidates.
Requiring more brain power, consider whether the reasons (or
"pretext", as you say) justify the war. Existence of WMDs wasn't
enuf to justify invading Iraq IMO.