China Prepares for War - Our Response?

[Loren Pechtel]

I wish I could share your optimism Steve. Citizens of the US can not even fix the most simple and basic problems that everyone knows is wrong with our politicians and government. We have a demented POTUS so feeble and aged he stumbles and falls asleep, a senate leader who routinely goes into staring seizures and Pelosi of our congress who can't be stopped doing inside stock trading for her own profit. Government agencies who are obviously weaponizing the law for political purposes plus other government agencies who are so obviously owned by lobby's doing harm to the public. A federal government bloated with debt and administrators who no one can possibly know what good they do. We send billions for a war most Americans really don't need to care about yet can't seem to secure our own border or provide the most minimum of infrastructure such as high speed rail. Most of the population can't come up with $400 cash and the others who have saved anything at all aren't financially secure either since our federal reserve has bloated our dollar to the point a financial reset is expected in the near future. (the US dollar is not trusted by the public to be real money which is why bit coin has become so popular) If we have a close federal election, neither side will trust the results because that does not work either.

Just exactly what does the federal government do right? And if you believe the state government's are any better you should take a careful look at California and San Francisco right now. Even if the state governments really mattered (like they should but don't) and could be fixed locally, they aren't the real problem anyway since most of our tax money, labor, and treasure has and is being sucked into federal black hole government.

Russia and China think we have become a banana republic and they appear to be right.

To fix problems you first need to understand the problems--the real problems, not what the QOP tells you are the problems.

 

[steve_bank]

NATO as someone said on the other thread was intended to keep Russia out and Germany down.

The Cold War was a standoff between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Warsaw Pact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Former Warsaw Pact members
East Germany was reintegrated into Germany.
Poland, Hungary, Romania NATO and EU.
Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are EU.

EU country profiles | European Union

Find out more about EU countries: their government and society, use of the euro, membership of border-free travel area.

european-union.europa.eu

NATO Countries 2023 List, Map, Members, Names & Full Form

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an international military alliance consisting of 31 member states from Europe and North America. Learn all about NATO countries in this article for UPSC.

www.studyiq.com

Unfortunately for Putin the former Soviet client states chose to go with the EU and NATO. Not just the fromer Warsaw Pact.

Putin can trust China for support as far as Stalin Trusted Hitler.

The idea of either China or Russia having a direct military confrontation with a mobilized western alliance is irrational at best.

Chinese and Russian communism waged an existential Cold War battle for ideological dominance of the world and lost.

I used to think the Chinese leaders were pragmatic and rational in opening up to the west and improving China. Now I think at the top they are a bunch of ideological ranting loonnees.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know, the other thing that occurred to me is that US is spending nearly a trillion a year on the military, so the idea we aren't preparing would probably be a bit over simplistic to say.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Putin's Russia has Putin's thumb on everything. To me a stifling economic environment. Self defeating.

Great, let Russia/China fail on its own then. Why do you start wars with countries?

We are not the ones starting the wars. You started a war because you lost control of a pawn. This has been a standard Russian tactic for a long time--support a puppet, get them some legitimacy and then step in militarily pretending they are the real government. Only this time you made a mistake, your target wasn't as corrupt and weak as you thought, but that your army had seriously rotted from within and could be defeated. When this became apparent the world saw a situation where we could give them more than nuisance-level weapons without having to worry about them too much.

 

[Elixir]

You started a war because you lost control of a pawn.

"B-b-b-but, it was MYYYyyyy pawn!"
-V. Putler

 

[steve_bank]

Barbos, yiu ahve it wrong.

We do not want Russia and China to fail, that leads to global uncertainties. Western monery helped China get up on ts feet. Investment went into Russia.

What we want is for China and Russia is to abide by rule of law in international issues.

China arbtrruly decared the South China Swea under Chiae control, lomg etsvlsied as international waters. If China thinks it has a legitmate claim take it international courst.

Putin tore up the agreement protecting Ukrainian sovereignty.

If not for those kinds of issues, nobody over here would care what Putin does in Russia. Our politcans m]and media might make comments, but the average American would care less about democrcy in China and Russia.

China's actions in the South China Sea threatens international trade. That gets the attention of people because it can affect the supply chain.

 

[Gospel]

You know, the other thing that occurred to me is that US is spending nearly a trillion a year on the military, so the idea we aren't preparing would probably be a bit over simplistic to say.

Bingo! Now where's my prize?

 

[ZiprHead]

So, wetern stability so far has been tested and passed.

Western stability was based on your economic and military hegemony, you kept everyone else in shit. It does not work anymore.

Yes, the military and economics are part of it. That is why NATO and the EU arose after the chaos and destruction of WWII. Mutually assured survival and prosperity instead of mutually assured devastation. Devastation, like the invasion of Ukraine.

Russia and China reject partnerships that promote international security and stability.

No, Russia asked for membership in NATO, you REJECTED it.
NATO today is a criminal organization.

NATO is criminal because NATO wouldn't partner with Russian criminals?

 

[lostone]

I once encountered some of Taiwan's indigenous people, as students, here in the US, in 1965. They were not fond of Chiang Kai-Chek and I suspect, even today, such people want to be free of mainland politics.

 

[steve_bank]

Kai-Shek was a fascist, but he was our anti communist fascist. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, a Cold War American theme.

 

[SLD]

You know, the other thing that occurred to me is that US is spending nearly a trillion a year on the military, so the idea we aren't preparing would probably be a bit over simplistic to say.

If our DoD budget were strictly preparing for war, you’d have a point. So much of it though is about supporting some Congressman’s pet project or doing utterly useless stuff just because some contractor lobbyist got it for them.

 

[steve_bank]

Off course we prepare for war, but wedo not provoke conflic6r by claiming international waters. Or invading a country to make it Amercan.

Military spending has a number of benefits. At least in the 80s defense companies were paces to get experience. Technology flows out into the economy. Historically defense projects were the only way to fund new technology.

The first mass producible transistors made by Fairfchild were too expensive for commercial use, military contracts provided financing.

Fly by wire used by commercial jets today was developed for fighter jets. Military contracts got American commercial aviation 'off the ground' so to speak.

The DOD/govt used to publish lists of grant projects. Phase 1 feasibility, phase 2 proof of concept. phase 3 production. It stimulated new business.

The Space Elevator was such a project.

The GAO has reported that NASA spending as it tricles down gnerates more tax revenue than the spending. Havem't heard anything about military sopending.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Two thirds of the DoD budget goes toward maintenance and personnel. Twenty percent goes toward procurement.

There hasn't been a study on waste in almost ten years. At the time it was estimated we had just something short of a billion dollars in excess parts and supplies. A legislator may try and protect a defense contractor in their district but the military has no problem saying, we don't need that. More than being a non-political statement, it is their duty to call it out.
Two years ago if the media showed hundreds of Abrams tanks sitting in the desert, I might call it waste. Today, not so much. The Russian are showing us where all this old equipment might come in handy some day.

Are there projects that suck up billions just to get cancelled and projects with out of control costs? Sure. But who can be absolutely sure what we'll need tomorrow and all the unknowns of creating a new platform. Littoral Combat Ships are a good example.
Tomorrow looks like drones, doesn't it? Relatively inexpensive drones and lots of them. How many and what type? I don't know. Maybe we should make a lot and keep them in storage just in case.

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty sure that a figurative combat ship would be a waste of money.

 

[Gospel]

There hasn't been a study on waste in almost ten years.

Their expense tracking methods are likely still unreliable, echoing sentiments from years ago regarding significant lapses in expenditure management. Remember that whole Rumsfeld comment about not being able to track trillions in spending that later turned into a conspiracy theory about 911? Despite the passing of two decades, it's unlikely that substantial improvements have been made.

 

[TV and credit cards]

There hasn't been a study on waste in almost ten years.

Their expense tracking methods are likely still unreliable, echoing sentiments from years ago regarding significant lapses in expenditure management. Remember that whole Rumsfeld comment about not being able to track trillions in spending that later turned into a conspiracy theory about 911? Despite the passing of two decades, it's unlikely that substantial improvements have been made.

Ah yes. Had to refresh my memory.

Fact Check: Rumsfeld did not reveal the loss of $2.3 trillion day before 9/11

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not reveal that the Pentagon had lost $2.3 trillion the day before the September 11, 2001, attacks, contrary to posts shared online that misrepresent his remarks about missing financial audit trails. The figure had been mentioned by the Department...

www.reuters.com

I never dealt with the money side of things in the military or civilian federal service. There is always a separation between the people with the credit cards buying stuff and the folks who control the money who are not permitted to have credit cards. I'll say the rules are all in place. It's a matter of their being followed. They were at the last place I worked, the FAA. It is part of the reason I threw in the towel on that job. The software used ws called PRISM. It is indescribable. It was the least intuitive program I had ever used, by far for what I had to do. But we had to move on. I was using Lotus Notes or Lotus 123, something like that up until about 2018, which for my part was little more than a calculator.

If you want to read an interesting story about the federal government and the lack of software to do business, the federal retirement system that's all out of a cave in PA is interesting. It's from 2014 so the entire story is available.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/03/22/sinkhole-of-bureaucracy/

I'm dealing with them now. At least they have email.

 

[Gospel]

In my mind it looks like this at the other end of that Email.

 

[Gospel]

If you want to read an interesting story about the federal government and the lack of software to do business, the federal retirement system that's all out of a cave in PA is interesting. It's from 2014 so the entire story is available.

They spent upwards of $100 million on failed attempts? Sounds to me like they need to spend $100 million on a single attempt. They likely put out bids and went with the lowest bidding contractors who likely still took the money and ran after it didn't work.

 

[barbos]

Putin can trust China for support as far as Stalin Trusted Hitler.

Putin can trust west even less.
Having said that, China throughout its history have shown little interest in territorial conquests, In that sense it is very similar to Russia.

 

[barbos]

We do not want Russia and China to fail, that leads to global uncertainties. Western monery helped China get up on ts feet. Investment went into Russia.

Your actions and even leaked or even proudly disclosed internal documents/plans say otherwise.
You are really weird in that sense. You (west) say one thing and then turn around and say another. You are aware that I can still hear you?
The west made a galactic blunder when they thought that China and Russia won't be able to stay on good terms.
In Reality China-Russia relations are mutually beneficial. What's is worse for you is that you were not able to separate India from Russia.
Russia has good relations with both of them, even so they don't have good relations between each other. Then there is Vietnam (again, has history with China). Even Pakistan. Vietnam leaked documents about their weapons deals with Russia the next day Biden called them third world country
It's amazing how Russia has good relations with all these countries separately.