decline of the american empire!

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
#2
I like the final line, gives us credit where its due!
 
#3
The only bit I thought was unmitigated shite was the bit about 'swift Chinese aircraft carriers'. By 2025? Not bloody likely.
 
#5
LMAO! Alrighty then... it's not bad as a fictional set up for a cheesy Tom Clancy novel but the author's grasp of reality is pretty weak. Sure, the United States has gone through an economic down turn however such events have always been followed by a massive upswing and this time will be no differant. Manufacturing firms are starting to bring their assetts back to the States believe it or not and there is every sign that trend will continue. Now, that doesn't mean we aren't due for a slight shift in our foreign policy. No doubt that military adventures will be muted over the next decade or so (barring any stupidity on the part of North Korea) but this will mainly be an outward sign of us refocusing on internal problems. China on the other hand has an extremely fragile economy which relys almost entirely on exporting goods to us... without that trade their government has less than two weeks payrole to fall back on and they know it. Their monumental task ahead is to build a self sustaining home market while we shift ours back... hopefully they will succeed otherwise that nation is facing a real nasty shock.

Military wise... well... China still can't produce engines for it most advanced aircraft and is totally reliant on Russian support in that area... not that the PLAAF is worth a darn in the first place. A single USN carrier air wing is more than capable of air superiority over them. Don't let the incident in which an old Russian submarine in Chinese hands surfaced near one of our carriers fool you... it was tracked from quite some distance away and actively pinged more than a few times and could of been destroyed at any moment. USN was not about to start a shooting war simply because of some antics on the part of one sub and chose to watchfully ignore it until it got extremely close rather than give away the threshold of detection and all that.

Anyway... there is little chance of a conflict involving China and the United States unless they attack an allied nation in the region. Our situation at the moment is more akin to what we went through in the 70's than a irreparable melt down.
 
#6
"No doubt that military adventures will be muted over the next decade or so "

Well I for one certainly hope so. Few things are more expensive then Wars.

john
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
The only bit I thought was unmitigated shite was the bit about 'swift Chinese aircraft carriers'. By 2025? Not bloody likely.
chinese allready a carrier navy training wise, india just waiting for its new ones.

the bit about one last techno thrust to have a hold over the world for a few years rings true - european missile shield anyone?
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
LMAO! Alrighty then... it's not bad as a fictional set up for a cheesy Tom Clancy novel but the author's grasp of reality is pretty weak. Sure, the United States has gone through an economic down turn however such events have always been followed by a massive upswing and this time will be no differant. Manufacturing firms are starting to bring their assetts back to the States believe it or not and there is every sign that trend will continue. Now, that doesn't mean we aren't due for a slight shift in our foreign policy. No doubt that military adventures will be muted over the next decade or so (barring any stupidity on the part of North Korea) but this will mainly be an outward sign of us refocusing on internal problems. China on the other hand has an extremely fragile economy which relys almost entirely on exporting goods to us... without that trade their government has less than two weeks payrole to fall back on and they know it. Their monumental task ahead is to build a self sustaining home market while we shift ours back... hopefully they will succeed otherwise that nation is facing a real nasty shock.

Military wise... well... China still can't produce engines for it most advanced aircraft and is totally reliant on Russian support in that area... not that the PLAAF is worth a darn in the first place. A single USN carrier air wing is more than capable of air superiority over them. Don't let the incident in which an old Russian submarine in Chinese hands surfaced near one of our carriers fool you... it was tracked from quite some distance away and actively pinged more than a few times and could of been destroyed at any moment. USN was not about to start a shooting war simply because of some antics on the part of one sub and chose to watchfully ignore it until it got extremely close rather than give away the threshold of detection and all that.

Anyway... there is little chance of a conflict involving China and the United States unless they attack an allied nation in the region. Our situation at the moment is more akin to what we went through in the 70's than a irreparable melt down.
while the chinese lack the research and development side they have become very good at backward engineering and plain copyright theft, they make half your kit as it is so the other half wouldnt be hard. the russian wont sell them new planes because they were so good at copying the old ones and undercut the russians prices for migs.

whilst the US might lord over everyone else forcing other countries to be reliant on their technologies it doesnt stop smaller countries giving them a bloody nose with simpler tech. from the afghan f22 stealth horse to the home made Aussie mini subs taking hull shots of carriers off hawaii - which I do believe caused a bit of an upset. the germans are selling their newly developed nazi tech subs to india so the emerging powers are making the effort and they wont be afraid to waste lives experimenting.

the article paints an interesting point backed up by others, without the unnecessary wars and the US led global financial crisis caused by not keeping a grip on wayward politicians, fiscal policies and lobby groups they could have stayed up there for longer. it is interesting that they keep building bases and moving into new countries every year in a mirror image of the UK adopting extra territories post ww1 after the decline of german and turkish overseas interests, that stretched the british empire a bit too far causing them to muck up the policies.

with the worlds biggest debt about reach unattainable repayment levels as the US credit rating gets lowered and 10% official 20% unofficial unemployment and a bigger wealth gap since the 30's america is likely to become the next big socialist experiment I reckon which is probably why the republicans are so desperate to keep the poor in their place.

they should learn and copy the marshall system they set up in germany, derepublicanise the gaulieters in both houses and go back to being a secular state instead of christian version of iran which is how it appears to the rest of the world. while I dont deliberately mock anyones faith it is embarrassing to see how the country has become radicalised by a preacher class as ignorant as they are hungry for influence.
 

Attachments

#9
while the chinese lack the research and development side they have become very good at backward engineering and plain copyright theft, they make half your kit as it is so the other half wouldnt be hard. the russian wont sell them new planes because they were so good at copying the old ones and undercut the russians prices for migs.
Actually, Chinese R&D has turned around massively over the past ten years, and the worrying fact is that they now have the capability to make their own shit, which can be just as good as ours, and for a fraction of the cost.

Of course, they couldn't have got to this stage if they hadn't brazenly ripped off other people's IP for a few generations.
 
#10
This says it rather more dramatically--note we are both mentioned in the subtitles

[video=youtube;OTSQozWP-rM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&playnext=1&list=PL8D1576208740B0BB&index=14[/video]
 
#11
This says it rather more dramatically--note we are both mentioned in the subtitles

[video=youtube;OTSQozWP-rM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&playnext=1&list=PL8D1576208740B0BB&index=14[/video]
You. Are. Shitting. Me.

This supposed representative on the Chinese establishment is slagging off the US for using... err... exactly the same methods the PRC used to stave off recession?

The US's decline is going to be more a relative one than absolute. The gap in capability between US military/economic/intellectual spheres and other nations is going to reduce because they are investing heavily in improving those fields and the US is less so. What worries me is that the US response tends towards blame rather than self-criticism. Your 'Chinese professor' crap is just such an example - far easier to blame the competition than work out a way to compete more effectively yourselves.
 
#12
You. Are. Shitting. Me.

This supposed representative on the Chinese establishment is slagging off the US for using... err... exactly the same methods the PRC used to stave off recession?

The US's decline is going to be more a relative one than absolute. The gap in capability between US military/economic/intellectual spheres and other nations is going to reduce because they are investing heavily in improving those fields and the US is less so. What worries me is that the US response tends towards blame rather than self-criticism. Your 'Chinese professor' crap is just such an example - far easier to blame the competition than work out a way to compete more effectively yourselves.
Another wonderful part of ARRSE--opinions.
 
#13
chinese allready a carrier navy training wise, india just waiting for its new ones.

the bit about one last techno thrust to have a hold over the world for a few years rings true - european missile shield anyone?
Eh They scrapped the deal for the second carrier and turned the first one the Russians sold them into a floating casino hotel. Also... the assumption that just because they can retroengineer some ten year old technology does not equate to catching up... no where near it. What we have in service now is thirty years past what they are fielding and what we have on the drawing boards is two to three generations past that. Our R&D is plodding ahead quite well and we are not sharing that technology nor having avionics or any other military technology manufactured in China despite what the makers of Call of Duty imagine.
 
#14
Eh They scrapped the deal for the second carrier and turned the first one the Russians sold them into a floating casino hotel. Also... the assumption that just because they can retroengineer some ten year old technology does not equate to catching up... no where near it. What we have in service now is thirty years past what they are fielding and what we have on the drawing boards is two to three generations past that. Our R&D is plodding ahead quite well and we are not sharing that technology nor having avionics or any other military technology manufactured in China despite what the makers of Call of Duty imagine.
I'm afraid to shatter your illusions, but had you been to the recent International Symposium on Ballistics in Beijing, your assessment might be slightly different.

The Chinese not only have far more people working away on R&D than most of NATO combined, but they have also made massive strides in technology, and are now much closer to the cutting edge than ever before. More worryingly, one of the Chinese authors referenced a US DoD research paper that was supposedly limited distribution in one area of 'critical technology'.

In Downtown Beijing, one can buy cracked copies of high-tech commercial codes (FEA, hydrocodes etc - many of which have been developed at cost to the US taxpayer) for the equivalent of a few $$, that would cost someone like General Dynamics literally tens of thousands per year - couple this with the huge workforce, and you have the potential for technology to leap forward several generations.

AAdmittedly, there not at the stage of building their own F-22 yet, but the days of copy and catch up are clearly coming to an end.
 
#15
LMAO! Alrighty then... it's not bad as a fictional set up for a cheesy Tom Clancy novel but the author's grasp of reality is pretty weak. Sure, the United States has gone through an economic down turn however such events have always been followed by a massive upswing and this time will be no differant. Manufacturing firms are starting to bring their assetts back to the States believe it or not and there is every sign that trend will continue. Now, that doesn't mean we aren't due for a slight shift in our foreign policy. No doubt that military adventures will be muted over the next decade or so (barring any stupidity on the part of North Korea) but this will mainly be an outward sign of us refocusing on internal problems. China on the other hand has an extremely fragile economy which relys almost entirely on exporting goods to us... without that trade their government has less than two weeks payrole to fall back on and they know it. Their monumental task ahead is to build a self sustaining home market while we shift ours back... hopefully they will succeed otherwise that nation is facing a real nasty shock.

Military wise... well... China still can't produce engines for it most advanced aircraft and is totally reliant on Russian support in that area... not that the PLAAF is worth a darn in the first place. A single USN carrier air wing is more than capable of air superiority over them. Don't let the incident in which an old Russian submarine in Chinese hands surfaced near one of our carriers fool you... it was tracked from quite some distance away and actively pinged more than a few times and could of been destroyed at any moment. USN was not about to start a shooting war simply because of some antics on the part of one sub and chose to watchfully ignore it until it got extremely close rather than give away the threshold of detection and all that.

Anyway... there is little chance of a conflict involving China and the United States unless they attack an allied nation in the region. Our situation at the moment is more akin to what we went through in the 70's than a irreparable melt down.
According to the article it doesn't look like China needs any help from Russia.

China does not need Russian arms anymore to attack USA - English pravda.ru
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Eh They scrapped the deal for the second carrier and turned the first one the Russians sold them into a floating casino hotel. Also... the assumption that just because they can retroengineer some ten year old technology does not equate to catching up... no where near it. What we have in service now is thirty years past what they are fielding and what we have on the drawing boards is two to three generations past that. Our R&D is plodding ahead quite well and we are not sharing that technology nor having avionics or any other military technology manufactured in China despite what the makers of Call of Duty imagine.
I think we did a huge post on topic but the chinese have three carriers 2 are theme parks yes but just like the one of ours they bought off the aussies to study, study is what they have been doing. buying the shell so cheap from ukraine was a cheap stroke of genius as they got the plans thrown in so they dont need to buy a 400m tape measure and they can experimentally refit their own parts or just backward engineer the bits out of the other two. potentially they could be ready any day now, while not in the same class as the nimitz they can chuck out enough of them to count. maybe even doing what the indians are doing and buy a few harriers to rebuild.

while not perfect the runway on a theme park is great training aid for pilots as well as being a good tourist stunt. and if they get it right the pacific starts to look a lot smaller.

the chinese boom was based on the military, every army has its own supply chain and factories for jeeps, uniforms, radios etc... the generals get a cut of the profits so if you arent fighting a war you can turn your radio factory over to mp3 players, your radar one to tv sets etc... we had one of our electronics firms do similar stuff, tv sets in one factory, vulcan radar in another. when the technologies combine and are cheap enough not to worry you then its very easy to go from a low tech to a high tech army in a generation, especially when everyone else has done the R&D at home then gone out looking for a cheap way to make it.
 
#18
#19
Another wonderful part of ARRSE--opinions.
Indeed, and as everyone knows opinions are like assholes – everyone has one. However, there are several other similarities: as any director of porn will tell you, some are worth more than others.

What is not opinion, however, is that the lobby group ‘Citizens Against Government Waste’ which this advert was paid for and made for exists to further the Reaganaut ideals of small government within the US. It has no remit for foreign affairs and makes no pretence that its expertise lies in this area. A quick glance at its Congressional ratings for 2009 show that it has what can most charitably be called a preference for those gentlemen of the Republican Right.

Another thing that is not opinion is that the policies being berated by this ‘Chinese professor’ – massive government spending as economic stimulus, increased health care provision to encourage spending instead of saving and state intervention in key economic sectors - are exactly those that the PRC used to navigate the recent economic crisis with an economy that never ceased to grow. Where opinion comes in is on the matter of whether the Chinese government would criticize the US government for copying its strategy or whether it would really care whether the US was ‘staying true to itself’, whatever that may mean. Given that the advert is not a representation of modern economic thought or practice within the PRC government, the question begs why a partisan US organisation would wish to foist such lies on the US population? Perhaps they feel themselves to be better able than mere ordinary people to judge what Terry Pratchett's Deacon Vorbis called the fundamental truth? Perhaps they wish to 'progress' public opinion in the desired direction?

The ‘Chinese professor’ ad has one further similarity to assholes. A polemic from CAGW, as with a trip to a lap-dancing club, will tell you that the amount of money people will gladly pay to have appealing opinions shaken in their faces bears no relation to the intrinsic worth of those pert little… err... opinions. My opinion is that it is Chicken Little-style scaremongering using the Big Bad Bogeyman of Beijing to stampede sheep in their desired political direction. The idea that some fictional future China will outstrip the US by avoiding stimulus spending is utter fantasy because that is not what happened! The idea that some fictional future Chinese will care that the USA ‘now works for us’ is just as much a fantasy – ask yourselves if US or any other citizens really care about that sort of thing themselves at this moment in time.
 
#20
What we have in service now is thirty years past what they are fielding and what we have on the drawing boards is two to three generations past that.
I'd suggest that that's exactly what the Admirals of the RN said vis a vis the US Navy in about 1919, then the goverment explained how they couldn't afford to build the new ships they wanted and we entered WW2 with 2 new battleships and 15 built somewhere between 1912 and 1923. I am well aware that battleships were in some ways obsolete by 1939, my point is that if your economy has been passed by your opponent he can afford to build and you cannot. From a historical perspective this article appears to me to make a lot of sense, the dates and details may be subject to margins of error, but the principles seem very sound.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top