US condemns China 'space weapon' - hypocrites

[mears]

Don't blame mears. he hasn't worked out how to take the blinkers off.

For someone who claims to be a trader he's got bugger all idea about Russia's industrial base.

Is it a strong industrial base? Tell me about it. What happens to that industrial base when the price of oil drops as it is now?

Is there a strong Russian company involved with something other than the exploitation of natural resources?

How does that industrial base contribute to the measly Russian GDP per capita of $3,400.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569000/Russia.html

GDP per capita not a good measure of Russian industrial might you say than name another Or just fall back on the personal insults because you are unable to name another.

 

[mears]

Don't blame mears. he hasn't worked out how to take the blinkers off.

For someone who claims to be a trader he's got bugger all idea about Russia's industrial base.

Is it a strong industrial base? Tell me about it. What happens to that industrial base when the price of oil drops as it is now?

Is there a strong Russian company involved with something other than the exploitation of natural resources?

How does that industrial base contribute to the measly Russian GDP per capita of $3,400.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569000/Russia.html

GDP per capita not a good measure of Russian industrial might you say than name another Or just fall back on the personal insults because you are unable to name another.

 

[mears]

double post

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I suspect that the Russian military/industrial complex will be quietly sniggering into their imported beers, as will the heavy plant manufacturers that have so many developing countries buying their products in preference to the American-manufactured stuff USAID tries to offload on them.

For a nation that has had to effectively re-industrialise in the last 15 years they're doing well. I'm surprised mears is writing them off in such a blasé manner.

There's a lot of interesting stuff to be said about Russia's recovery from the free-market nonsense imposed during the Yeltsin years, but given the topic of this thread I think it'd be more interesting to focus on the fact that India and China are relatively safe from USAF interventions.

This is mostly due to their possession of the Russian designed and built S-300 long range air defence system, which can theoretically shoot down AWACS or at least force it to keep its distance, thus limiting the effectiveness of US precision bombing and taking away a lot of their advantages in terms of air superiority. If you can neutralise the US advantage in those areas, then having lots of relatively cheap Russian built Flankers, as for example the Chinese do, is suddenly a very cost effective way to deter the USAF from bothering you.

The US's ultimate economic weapon is the threat of having the jeebus-warriors of the USAF smash the infrastructure of any nation that the US considers a strategic or economic rival, but if you can stop that from happening, you can develop your economic resources, and Russia has plenty of them, in a way that doesn't suit the US.

So it's quite important to have that capability if you want to follow a path that doesn't suit the US. For entirely similar reasons, it's useful also to be able to shoot down US military satellites.

 

[mears]

you thick cunt...

but then again I already knew that.

Don't get me wrong Ivan, its a very smart, well laid out rebuttal you present. What part of that do you dislike or disagree with?

 

[mears]

There's a lot of interesting stuff to be said about Russia's recovery from the free-market nonsense imposed during the Yeltsin years, but given the topic of this thread I think it'd be more interesting to focus on the fact that India and China are relatively safe from USAF interventions.

This is mostly due to their possession of the Russian designed and built S-300 long range air defence system, which can theoretically shoot down AWACS or at least force it to keep its distance, thus undermining the effects of US precision bombing.

Are you inplying that Russia has gone back to a command type economy? That current Russian economic growth is due to something other than the price of oil?

 

[mears]

That's about the level of insight that I rather expected to find that your analysis was based on mears

You are here commenting on my comments about Russia so your insights must be interesting, your knowledge on Russia impressive.

Do share

 

[snadge]

Than tell me why Russia will join the US, and China and maybe India as the next generation of great powers. Or maybe you think some of the aforementioned countries should not be on the list?

Lets try to step it up.

you are deluded, US has had it's chance at being a superpower and has failed miserably.

By using aggression and duplicious tactics the US has shown everyone how to achieve dominance, unluckily for the US, other countries have adopted that attitude and have the stomach to carry it through.

The US is a typical playground bully and has proved time and time again that they haven't the ability to back up the rhetoric (sp).

 

[snadge]

You are here commenting on my comments about Russia so your insights must be interesting, your knowledge on Russia impressive.

Do share

more than yours you poor deluded fool.

 

[snadge]

Don't get me wrong Ivan, its a very smart, well laid out rebuttal you present. What part of that do you dislike or disagree with?

your refusal to look further than your own shores.

and your blinkered world view as has been expressed by countless, uninformed, evidence free posturating posts by yourself.

 

[snadge]

Don't get me wrong Ivan, its a very smart, well laid out rebuttal you present. What part of that do you dislike or disagree with?

for a start, classing a country as "backward."


why are they backward?

 

[mears]

for a start, classing a country as "backward."


why are they backward?

Russia is backward because the are unwilling to implement a strong rule of law, develop coherent property rights, produce uniform commercial standards for private business. This is why you see no strong Russian corporations other than those which possess Russia's natural resources. It is why the people remain so poor even though the intellectual capital of Russia is so strong.

They are backward in the treatment of the Ukrainians and Georgians and Moldovans. The can't come to grip with the end of the Soviet empire.

Backwards all the way my friend. Well except in the development of high tech weapondry.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yes, but if a nation wishes to develop its natural and social capital in a way that the US doesn't like, especially if it has significant energy resources, it's important to have the weaponry necessary to deter the US from smashing that nation's infrastructure to tiny pieces. So that's quite an important point.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Amusing, isn't it. In my opinion people around teh world better start learning the language of the future superpower.

salaam.

It always perplexes me why anyone would want to trade the US for China as the world's dominant power.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh, do shut up and take the time to learn some background:

China has wanted to prevent the US from installing a missile shield, just when China was getting good at missiles. They also probably fear being forced into another superexpensive arms race, like the one that did in the USSR.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Edited for a better link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

Wiki gives a summary and links to the full pdf at the bottom. Any nation wishing to pursue an economic or social development path that doesn't suit the US has by now probably read and profited from this text. It considers the various potential options open to a nation menaced by the US military machine.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's about the level of insight that I rather expected to find that your analysis was based on mears

What advances have the russians made in the last 20 years to compare with the expansion of the chinese economy, or the growth of tech-type business around Bangalore and elsewhere in India?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Blowing up satellites like this creates a lot of space junk that stays in orbit and can damage other satellites. Not sure why the Chinese felt the need to actually blow something up - did they think they weren't able to and needed to prove it? What have they actually achieved in doing this?

Seems like some people will cheer anything that pisses off the US, even when there is no good reason to cheer for it at all.

Looks like China wanted to get the US' attention and hold it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I suspect that the Russian military/industrial complex will be quietly sniggering into their imported beers, as will the heavy plant manufacturers that have so many developing countries buying their products in preference to the American-manufactured stuff USAID tries to offload on them.
.

Got any examples of that?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

you are deluded, US has had it's chance at being a superpower and has failed miserably.

Yep, that's why I laugh when thickcunt actually includes it with China and India as a great power this century.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

This is mostly due to their possession of the Russian designed and built S-300 long range air defence system, which can theoretically shoot down AWACS or at least force it to keep its distance, thus limiting the effectiveness of US precision bombing and taking away a lot of their advantages in terms of air superiority. If you can neutralise the US advantage in those areas, then having lots of relatively cheap Russian built Flankers, as for example the Chinese do, is suddenly a very cost effective way to deter the USAF from bothering you. .

You truly have a one track mind. I'd suspect that India bought these surface to air missiles to defend against Pakistan and China more than against the US.

India's fought wars with both, but not with the US.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

By using aggression and duplicious tactics the US has shown everyone how to achieve dominance, unluckily for the US, other countries have adopted that attitude and have the stomach to carry it through.).

Do you know much about Chinese history, or European history?

They go back before the era of the US, and there was some jostling for dominance, even back then?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

your refusal to look further than your own shores.

and your blinkered world view as has been expressed by countless, uninformed, evidence free posturating posts by yourself.

What does posturating mean?

Or duplicious?

If you want to sound like you're smart, try talking and spelling as if you are.

Because you see, the average reader will think that if you're prepared to make up words, you might do the same with facts, history, etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, but if a nation wishes to develop its natural and social capital in a way that the US doesn't like, especially if it has significant energy resources, it's important to have the weaponry necessary to deter the US from smashing that nation's infrastructure to tiny pieces. So that's quite an important point.

How does that respond to this comment by mears:

"Russia is backward because the are unwilling to implement a strong rule of law, develop coherent property rights, produce uniform commercial standards for private business. This is why you see no strong Russian corporations other than those which possess Russia's natural resources. It is why the people remain so poor even though the intellectual capital of Russia is so strong."

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Why on earth would I want to tailor what I say to suit mears? He's an idiot.

I'm saying what it suits me to say, which in this case is about ways that nations who wish to pursue an economic or social development path that doesn't suit the US might do so while deterring the US military machine.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The fact that none of these nations are particularly progressive is neither here nor there. Any nation that refuses to accept the neo-liberal consensus is potentially looking at having its infrastructure smashed to tiny pieces by the USAF, so ways of deterring that are very important considerations, even if the most viable models currently available for deterring US military intervention are being proposed by nations or groups who are in no sense admirable.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Why on earth would I want to tailor what I say to suit mears? He's an idiot.

I'm saying what it suits me to say, which in this case is about ways that nations who wish to pursue an economic or social development path that doesn't suit the US might do so while deterring the US military machine.

I was just wondering what you'd have to say about it.

And yes, of course; countries have been building arsenals for that reason for a long time.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is, by using crude military force to attempt to secure economic and strategic objectives in the way that it has under the neo-cons, the US has created a strong motivation in every nation that seeks to pursue a path independent of the US, to find ways to deter or defeat that force. Some of those ways are likely to have really quite unpleasant consequences ...

 

[mears]

Yes, but if a nation wishes to develop its natural and social capital in a way that the US doesn't like, especially if it has significant energy resources, it's important to have the weaponry necessary to deter the US from smashing that nation's infrastructure to tiny pieces. So that's quite an important point.

You already exhausted you knowledge of Russia but you were always an intellectual juggernaut.

Now back to America!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is it a strong industrial base? Tell me about it. What happens to that industrial base when the price of oil drops as it is now?

Same as now; they'll carry on exporting good-quality weaponry, optical machinery and heavy plant at reasonable prices.

Is there a strong Russian company involved with something other than the exploitation of natural resources?

I thought you read "the Economist"?
Obviously not very thoroughly.

How does that industrial base contribute to the measly Russian GDP per capita of $3,400.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569000/Russia.html

GDP per capita not a good measure of Russian industrial might you say than name another Or just fall back on the personal insults because you are unable to name another.

Perhaps you should deepen your research to reflect the social class construction of the Russian population, then you might have a clue what you're talking about.

Let's just say that even without their natural resources, Russia has the "headroom" to expand their economy massively, to achieve surges in growth.

Unlike the US, which is currently giving itself a hernia because it's straining so hard.