US condemns China 'space weapon' - hypocrites

[Aldebaran]

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

It does not perplex me how people manage to create for themselves the ability to read in my writings what I never wrote. Would I be a sociologue I would write a book about this amusing phenomenon.

It is not about "trading a dominant power" for an other one. It is about re-introduction of a very needed balance in order to keep the immature puberal arrogance of the USA under control.
It is normal people prefer that to be done by a nation with a such a long and rich history and culture.

salaam.

 

[newharper]

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

Now back to America!

You sad fuck.

Look, if your gov'ment stops invading, or economically raping the rest of the planet we will leave you alone. You are not that attractive; it is not us that is fixated.

Your view of the U.S. as the 'Man in the White Hat' is not now widely shared.

We would love to be able to ignore such sad groupthink

 

[TAE]

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.

From the point of view of attracking investment, that is absolutely true. Nobody wants to invest money if there is no strong rule of law, no coherent property rights, and no uniform commercial standards for private business.

The thing is, though, that you seem to assume that this kind of stock-market investment is the only way a country can be run. Then you automatically judge any problems a country may be having by your own economic model and do not consider other factors.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

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.

The thing is, Russia has huge potential to develop as an advanced economy, fantastic natural resources, a well educated population and all that stuff, but it's still in the process of getting out of the mess that the Yeltsin era left it in. As far as I can tell from e.g. OECD reports and the like they are in the process of doing that, but they've a long way to go. For example, they've got significant debts that they're in the process of paying off, something that Putin's fiscal policies are succeeding in doing, but at the cost of keeping investment pretty low in a number of key areas, not least the military industrial sector. It does though, look to me as though they are working quite intelligently towards the point where they can start doing that kind of stuff. Conservative assumptions about energy export revenues for example have left them able to pay off debts according to plan and to leave a fairly fat surplus more often than not.

It doesn't mean that such economic development would necessarily follow the free-market models against which mears appears to be judging them, nor that it would suit the western neo-liberal consensus, because given such development Russia with its rich natural resources would become a very strong competitor to the US and other relatively energy poor nations.

So one key consideration for them is how they're going to get to the point where they can start using their enormous potential to redevelop their military industrial capabilities. If you read through the articles in recent issues of 'Military Thought' which are available in various places online, it's pretty clear that the Russian military is very concerned about the tendency since the 90's for the US and its close allies to use military force for the benefit of corporate and other economic interests. They are very keen to have some choices other than immediately going nuclear if the USAF shows up to smash their infrastructure to bits in order to facilitate access to their natural resources and/or to eliminate them as economic competition.

There is potential here for them to move fast insofar as they still have their core scientific and technical strengths, but haven't put any significant investment into this area since the Soviet era. So if or when they do start to invest strongly in this area, they'll be able to move straight to some pretty advanced capabilities without dragging too much legacy stuff along with them. What they've been doing so far while trying to get their civil economy sorted out and pay off their debts is keeping their design groups active on a shoestring budget, while letting the cold war era military production facilities either rot or be transformed to civilian use, with the exception of a few areas where there is an export market to pay their way.

That means that once their economy has recovered to the point where it could support such investment, they could if they felt the need to do so, say if they thought some of their resource-rich areas were under threat, build up a fairly significant advanced capability.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

That depends on your criteria. I have no doubt that your criteria will revolve around economic factors and naught else, so we'll start with those:
Russia's re-industrialisation (bearing in mind their talent for innovation, something neither Chinese or Indian industry has yet shown a great penchant for); Pre-existing infrastructure; non-laissez faire economic policy.

Social factors: High rates of literacy; high rates of tertiary education; good relations with neighbouring states.

Political factors: Authoritarian government with a democratic overlay (a "good" thing if you're operating to the dictates of capitalism).

I'd say Russia has the advantage over China and India in many ways, but you'll never see it because you're tied to a mindset which lauds the fact that China and India have, to some extent, chosen "The American Way".

You will, of course, ultimately find that to be as illusory as your fantasies about Indian Muslims.

Lets try to step it up.

How sad, the narrow-minded one attempting to be patronising. Dream on.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are you inplying that Russia has gone back to a command type economy?

Only an imbecile would take away that sort of conclusion from what Bernie said. Do you actually know much about recent Soviet/C.I.S. history? If you did, you'd know that what Bernie was referring to was the "robber baron" economics of the Yeltsin years.

That current Russian economic growth is due to something other than the price of oil?

Are you implying that Russian economic growth is due only to oil?

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

I suspect that Mr Mears is of the opinion that the American way of capitalism is the "one true way", and that any deviation is a manifestation of some kind of essential evilness.

Little else could explain his construction (yet again) of a thesis that is precariously balanced on a foundation of ideological preference (the republican llionisation of "...a strong rule of law, develop coherent property rights, produce uniform commercial standards for private business", for example).

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

They may have Pakistan and China in mind, that doesn't mean that such defences wouldn't be useful against any aggressor or would-be hegemon.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

They may have Pakistan and China in mind, that doesn't mean that such defences wouldn't be useful against any aggressor or would-be hegemon.

Well they might be useful against other nations, but that stuff was designed by the Russians specifically for dealing with a US attack of the sort we've recently seen against Iraq, and it's interesting that they've prioritised what little investment they are putting into military systems to make sure that this stuff keeps pace with the times.

 

[teqniq]

... but in my opinion it is plausible to deduce that China intended this demonstration to be an -effective- warning, related to the agressive US policies in the issue "Iran".

salaam.

That was more or less the same conclusion I had arrived at.

 

[david dissadent]

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.

What does the neoliberal consensus have to do with anything? Saudi and Japan reject the 'neoliberal consensus' yet are very close US allies.

 

[david dissadent]

Are you implying that Russian economic growth is due only to oil?

Well Ive not really heard of Russia exporting much beyond oil and gas, some rocket technology and arms.

 

[david dissadent]

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.

I hope you are not reffering to China and Russia develping there social capital. Some nations are doing that, but those two do not feature prominantly amoung them.

 

[david dissadent]

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.

There is no need for them to get involved with an expensive arms race. The Topol M is pretty much uninterceptable, so it does not require a similary prohibitivly expensive shield to regain parity, simply a well designed missile able to return to MAD and make a war unwinnable again.

 

[david dissadent]

Two minds about this arguement. Personally I don't like that they have done it because of the risk to other LEO satellites. BUT, the debris will still be travelling primarily with the vector of the original satellite and will only be dispersing with the vectors imparted from the explosion (admittedly along the vector of the course of the ABM the velocities will be quite high). If the satellite was already in a decaying orbit then the chances are that there is little chance that it will cause damage to another satellite.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11000-antisatellite-weapon-used-simple-technology.html

The launch vehicle appears to be an IRBM not a ABM. Intercetpting satalites it pretty lo tech. It does not appear to have been in an orbit that was rapidly decaying, as for that it needs to be much lower where atmospheric drag is a major factor. There is a tenuose atmosphere at c. 500 miles that will eventualy decay the orbits of the debris. Some of it will develop a much lower perigee wich will decrease the time till it derorbits, but over all this was a very messy test.

Had this thread turned into much more than anti american ranting then a strong ticking of to China for such poor behaviour is space would be in order.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You may call it anti american ranting if you choose David, but for many peoples around the world, the question of how to deal with coercion by international institutions which primarily serve corporate interests and in some cases, direct coercion by the US military, are significant concerns.

 

[david dissadent]

You may call it anti american ranting if you choose David, but for many peoples around the world, the question of how to deal with coercion by international institutions which primarily serve corporate interests and in some cases, direct coercion by the US military, are significant concerns.

A thread about Americas ills I can understand and contribute too, a thread about China millitarisatin of space that disintigrates into another 'aemrica is teh sucks' style thread, kind of goes over my head.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, the relevance here is I would think, the nature of the military threat that the Chinese have in mind when they practice shooting down satellites.

If you're considering how to deal with the US military, preventing them, if you can, from gaining air superiority is a fairly fundamental consideration.

Being able to shoot down their satellites, as well as their AWACS and JSTARS aircraft is probably going to make a significant contribution in that scenario.

 

[david dissadent]

Well, the relevance here is I would think, the nature of the military threat that the Chinese have in mind when they practice shooting down satellites.

If you're considering how to deal with the US military, preventing them, if you can, from gaining air superiority is a fairly fundamental consideration.

Being able to shoot down their satellites, as well as their AWACS and JSTARS aircraft is probably going to make a significant contribution in that scenario.

This was not a millitary test. It was a political statement.

US spy satalites are equiped to manuvere in orbit to avoid precisely this kind of attack, and they are now reputidly stealthy. Hitting an object in a well established orbit that is dead and no manuevering is very very unlikely to worry the US in the slightest. Like the North Korean nuclear explosion, it is only the confirmation of what has long been assumed.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting. What would that political statement be do you think?

 

[newharper]

It was a political statement.

Are Americans the only people allowed to make political statements?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> US spy satalites are equiped to manuvere in orbit to avoid precisely this kind of attack, and they are now reputidly stealthy. Hitting an object in a well established orbit that is dead and no manuevering is very very unlikely to worry the US in the slightest. <snip>

Could you point me to some sources on this capability please?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Answering my own question regarding the political statement, I'm guessing that this was a kind of 'fuck you' response to the Bush administrations talk of dominating space in US interests and to their rebuffs of attempts by various other nations to establish some form of treaty prohibiting this kind of stuff.

 

[Aldebaran]

That too, of course.

Had this thread turned into much more than anti american ranting then a strong ticking of to China for such poor behaviour is space would be in order.

Do you mean you have objections to China destroying one of their own sattelites and if so, why?

salaam.

 

[mears]

From the point of view of attracking investment, that is absolutely true. Nobody wants to invest money if there is no strong rule of law, no coherent property rights, and no uniform commercial standards for private business.

The thing is, though, that you seem to assume that this kind of stock-market investment is the only way a country can be run. Then you automatically judge any problems a country may be having by your own economic model and do not consider other factors.

So what model should I consider? What model do you consider? What other factors should we take into account?

Don't leave me hanging.

 

[mears]

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

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


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.

Why doesn't Russia expand than? Why is everything so determined on economic growth? Why are these smart Russians not creating goods (other than weapons) and services to sell on the open market? Why are they not starting companies to employ other Russians?

But Russia was always a little behind the time I guess.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well Ive not really heard of Russia exporting much beyond oil and gas, some rocket technology and arms.

And because you haven't heard of it...?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That too, of course.



Do you mean you have objections to China destroying one of their own sattelites and if so, why?

salaam.

The objection is that blowing up satellites sprays debris all over the place that may subsequently chew up other satellites. Of course, most of the satellites likely to be affected belong to the West, because there are simply more commercial and military satellites launched by the West. So part of the Chinese intent may have been to say in effect 'If you don't want a treaty, but instead want an anti-satellite arms race, consider who has most to lose.'

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why doesn't Russia expand than? Why is everything so determined on economic growth? Why are these smart Russians not creating goods (other than weapons) and services to sell on the open market? Why are they not starting companies to employ other Russians?

Aren't they?
care to validate your claims?

But Russia was always a little behind the time I guess.

As usual you've already reached a judgement, and as usual it's not based on a particularly rounded reading of the facts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't leave me hanging.

Now there's a thought.