China Training for 'Short Sharp War' with Japan

CCP

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
1,204
Likes
196
You are right that China has nothing to compete in terms of brand recognition with the likes of Apple, BMW, Mercedes,Lexus etc.. No one will prefer a "highend" Chinese product when a better Premium product is available from Europe or some other place. My point with the previous post was that Japanese are on par with the West in terms of innovation.

One point, Lenovo recently bought Motorola Mobility, so that give them some brand recognition to compete in Highend mobile market.

FYI

Lenovo is no.1 PC vendor also No.5 smartphone vender.
Huawei is no.1 in telecom hardware and software also no.3 smartphone vender.
SAIC Motor is 10th biggest Auto Company


Market share of personal computer vendors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electronics Weekly News | Business | Four Chinese companies in top ten smartphone vendors

http://www.mbaskool.com/fun-corner/top-brand-lists/7544-top-10-automobile-companies-in-the-world-2013.html

http://www.lightreading.com/huawei-snatches-ericssons-crown/d/d-id/697230
 
Last edited:

jalsa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
724
Likes
442
Foxconn is the biggest contract manufacturer of mobiles in the world, what do they get for that? Apple gets their iPhones manufactured by them and earns 40% gross margins, Foxconn's margins are waaaay less than that. See what a brand recognition and innovation will do to you. China is good as manufacturing base.

Lenovo is biggest by volumes, what about profit margins? in PC's costing above $1000 Macbooks dominate the market, Lenovo is only good for cheap laptops with mediocre build quality.
 

CCP

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
1,204
Likes
196
Foxconn is the biggest contract manufacturer of mobiles in the world, what do they get for that? Apple gets their iPhones manufactured by them and earns 40% gross margins, Foxconn's margins are waaaay less than that. See what a brand recognition and innovation will do to you. China is good as manufacturing base.

Lenovo is biggest by volumes, what about profit margins? in PC's costing above $1000 Macbooks dominate the market, Lenovo is only good for cheap laptops with mediocre build quality.
Innovation? China is no.4 in the world with double-digit growth every year.

http://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2014/20140116.html
16 January 2014

The EPO received more than 265 000 patent filings in 2013. This is a 2.8% increase over 2012 (257 700 filings), and a new all-time high. Last year, after a high-quality search and examination process, the EPO granted and published 66 700 patents, which was 1.7% more than in 2012 (65 600).

"The figures underline Europe's importance as a stronghold of global innovation," said EPO President Benoît Battistelli. "This is the fourth year in a row that patent filings at the EPO have grown. Despite a recent rule change in the application procedure, which kept growth modest in 2013, the figures are up and demand for patents in Europe is clearly on the rise."
Last year, 93 600 filings (35.3% of the total; growth of +/-0% over 2012) at the EPO originated from its 38 member states, followed by the US (64 800 filings; 24.5% of the total; +2%), Japan (52 300; 19.7%; +1.2%), China (22 200 filings; 8.4%; +18%) and South Korea (16 900 filings; 6.4%; +16.6%).

In Europe, Germany remains the top country of origin of patent filings at the EPO (32 000; 12.1% of total filings; -6.3% over 2012), followed by France (12 200; 4.6%; +/-0%), Switzerland (8 000; 3%; -2.2%), the Netherlands (7 600; 2.9%; +18%), UK (6 500; 2.5%; -2.9%) and Sweden (5 000; 1.9%; +7.7%).

Important note
These are preliminary figures. The EPO will publish detailed figures on individual countries and sectors, as well as a ranking of companies, on 6 March 2014.

also read the report of 2012:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/patents/901/wipo_pub_901_2013.pdf
 
Last edited:

t_co

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
2,538
Likes
709
Thank you for the stereotype commentary about the US.wars that they fight and who organises them for profit.

Maybe that is the reason why the US Military has announced that they are downsizing!

Army to Cut Its Forces by 80,000 in 5 Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/army-to-cut-its-forces-by-80000-in-5-years.html?_r=0

Maybe, to fight wars goaded by defence contractors, and lose, right?
Actually, if you look closely at the budget, you'll see that procurement allocations are flat while personnel costs are down - the net amount going to defense contractors is pretty much the same; the cuts will be borne by the wives and children of US soldiers.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
Thank you for the stereotype commentary about the US.wars that they fight and who organises them for profit.

Maybe that is the reason why the US Military has announced that they are downsizing!

Army to Cut Its Forces by 80,000 in 5 Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/army-to-cut-its-forces-by-80000-in-5-years.html?_r=0

Maybe, to fight wars goaded by defence contractors, and lose, right?
Forgive me, I forgot that you only like stereotypes about China. A stereotype is an inaccurate assumption, but all I've just given you is verifiable fact.

In addition to what t_co said, the largest portion of the US defense budget is paid out in wages; that's what sequestration is largely cutting through personnel reductions not the programmes that fund the defense sector.

The procurement funds that the defense sector profits from have remained largely as they are. Like I've already shown you, they have first class representation in congress. Congress would sooner cut service men than over-budget and over-due big ticket procurement items like the F35 or LCS.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
My friend.......you are overestimating the role of China in the future just like that J20 stealth aircraft that looks as big as Boeing 737.

First off China period of crazy growth at all costs is done. Your pollution is the worst in the world across all your cities.
Your labor costs are slowly getting higher that most parts of SE Asia.
Your competitive advantage in making low-tech products like refrigerators, TVs, cell-phones, furniture, appliances....all low tech products with low margin built on the backs of a whole generation of low wage slave labor children of peasant farmers is slowly vanishing. Your population is also aging fast.

Also there is one very important distinction to make between China and all the other leading developed economies of the world - In China the government is rich, but most of the people are still poor and don't have that much disposable income.
China is the only country that has this strange dynamic compared to other developed countries !!

The next generation Chinese will have to build high margin products that compete with the very best from Europe, North America, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Brazil. Toyota's Lexus division still makes very nice cars, but BMW is still kicking their ass in the luxury performance automobile segment in the US. Your Geely cars may sell well in China but that doesn't mean that anyone outside China is going to buy a Geely.

And all those resource based economies like Australia and Indonesia and the Middle-East will find other emerging economies to replace China's waning appetite for raw materials. Australians are not going to go bankrupt because the Chinese stop buying their iron ore, timber or beef.
Again, friend, its not 1995. Its astounding how a post could be filled with this many outdated generalisations.

China produces much more than just low tech goods. There's a reason China enjoys huge trade surplus' with a majority of its trading partners. Its the largest trading nation in the world.

Power equipment, telecoms equipment, industrial machinery, cars, electronics etc etc. Even products assembled in the US will almost certainly have 1 or more Chinese components.

Luxury brands? Luxury brands may register larger profits than their low cost counterparts, but mass produce brands always enjoy the largest market share. For that very reason, cheaper american brands like GM sell more cars in China than European brand names like BMW or Mercedes. Samsung and the many, many Chinese brands attain higher smart phone sales no's than Apple in China for that same reason. Chinese brands like Huawei are attaining much higher sales figures in the developing world, where American products are too highly priced for the general populace.

And I'm not overestimating China's future, I'm giving you the realities of today. Almost every country in the Asia Pacific has China as its no.1 trading partner, save the Philipines and few other US dependent small territories like Guam or Hawai.

China's economy is still just as investment based as it is export based. We're the favorite investment destination of the western world. The reason being that returns in China in relation with its GDP growth are still much more than you'd get in the states europe or the rest of the developing world(BRICS). The US gov may posture and threaten, but American companies are still the no.1 investors in China, closely followed by the Europeans.

WRT wages, yes, Chinese wages are on the rise, but the average Chinese worker, whilst being every bit as skilled, still earns less than half of his American counterpart's wages.

Those rising wages have also seen China surpass the US as the number 1 market for many industries. American carmakers sell more cars here than they do on the continetal US. Smartphones, computers, household appliances, natural resources, the tourism sector, commercial jets, etc etc.

The middle class in China will be the biggest in the world by a big margin for the foreseeable future. The regional and global implications of that don't need explaining.

The bottom line being that China is and will be the dominant economic player in the Asia Pacific for a long time. Whether you believe that or not is something I can't help, but it doesn't make it any less true.

PS. This is massively OT. Start a thread on the economic dynamics of the Asia-Pacific and South Asia and Ikd be happy to continue this discussion. Tell us more about China's plan to blitzkreig Japan. LOL!
 

Robert Green

New Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
2
Likes
0
I won't wonder if China becomes a super armory country in some years to come as it has been working very hard on its arms and ammunition. The fact is that, even Americans are not working this much on their defense systems. Sooner or later, if these things continue to run like this, China will overtake America in every aspect.

Eton
 

jalsa

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
724
Likes
442
I won't wonder if China becomes a super armory country in some years to come as it has been working very hard on its arms and ammunition. The fact is that, even Americans are not working this much on their defense systems. Sooner or later, if these things continue to run like this, China will overtake America in every aspect.

Eton
Take-over America!! Pipe dream?:rofl: How does Chinese weaponry compare to American stuff in terms of quality and technology.
 

CCP

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
1,204
Likes
196
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
He's not running for president Ewalld, his yearly campaign warchest averages at the half a million mark.

So the fact the industry that provides the largest part of his campaign funds is the defense sector, and that the defense sector provides a large portion of jobs in his constituency(state) has no bearing on his foreign policy footing?

Its just a coincidence that Rep. Forbes is 1 of the biggest advocates in congress for Air-Sea Battle and a more aggressive presence in the Pacific by the US military?

Hard to believe that his foreign policy "just happens" to align with the interests of the defense companies that foot a large part of his campaign bill.

Bears sh*t in the woods and politicians are corrupt; its the nature of the beast my friend.

The same is true for the gun lobby, the Jewish lobby etc etc. Such lobbyists play a major part in determining US domestic and foreign policy.

Or are you saying they're influence is "insignificant" too?
Again, to compare to the table we are discussiing, see this article from my state and look at the dollar amounts for Senator Kay Hagan.

.WASHINGTON: Hagan drawing homegrown cash for re-election campaign | State Politics | NewsObserver.com

Facing a tough re-election season, U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan is relying on some vital home-state interests to fuel her campaign for a second term, according to federal fundraising reports.The pharmaceutical, and securities and investment industries are among the top contributors to the North Carolina Democrat, widely viewed as one of the more vulnerable incumbents in this year's midterm elections.The pharmaceutical business is a major contributor to the state's economy, and traditionally a big spender on campaigns.Employees and political actions committees associated with the industry have contributed more than $400,000 to Hagan since her Senate career began in 2009, including more than $60,000 in the last three months of 2013, federal campaign finance reports show.
 

Robert Green

New Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
2
Likes
0
See, that's the smell of overconfidence we have been smelling over a decade. I have been reading quite a few articles about China and America. That is why I'm so concerned. Chinese are experimenting new kind of weapon in secret which could wipe off whole country without leaving any trace.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Actually, if you look closely at the budget, you'll see that procurement allocations are flat while personnel costs are down - the net amount going to defense contractors is pretty much the same; the cuts will be borne by the wives and children of US soldiers.
Forgive me, I forgot that you only like stereotypes about China. A stereotype is an inaccurate assumption, but all I've just given you is verifiable fact.

In addition to what t_co said, the largest portion of the US defense budget is paid out in wages; that's what sequestration is largely cutting through personnel reductions not the programmes that fund the defense sector.

The procurement funds that the defense sector profits from have remained largely as they are. Like I've already shown you, they have first class representation in congress. Congress would sooner cut service men than over-budget and over-due big ticket procurement items like the F35 or LCS.
What one forgets is that it is the MAN behind the WEAPON that matters and makes the difference between winning or losing.

I am sure you are aware.

Or else why have such large standing armies including that of China?

If weaponry alone was the factor, then one would only have hi tech weaponry and not waste money on wages of manpower.

So, it would be better to understand how victory is achieved in war rather being theory oriented.

Can you capture areas with weaponry alone?

The size of a Military depends on the strategic vision and the necessary wherewithal to translate that vision. Manpower is essential in that mission.

Downsizing indicates downgrading of the offensive intent and capabilities.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
What one forgets is that it is the MAN behind the WEAPON that matters and makes the difference between winning or losing.

I am sure you are aware.

Or else why have such large standing armies including that of China?

If weaponry alone was the factor, then one would only have hi tech weaponry and not waste money on wages of manpower.

So, it would be better to understand how victory is achieved in war rather being theory oriented.

Can you capture areas with weaponry alone?

The size of a Military depends on the strategic vision and the necessary wherewithal to translate that vision. Manpower is essential in that mission.

Downsizing indicates downgrading of the offensive intent and capabilities.
I don't think you know what we're talking about. Any assertion that the US military would cut the very pilots or operators that man their aircraft or ships etc is ridiculous to say the least.

America's millitary doesn't just employ soldiers my friend. A former serving man should know that. There are over 662 over-seas bases in 130 countries that the US military operates. Some in countries as remote as Botswana in Southern Africa(saw this one myself; an Airforce Base named Thebephatshwa).

It takes hundreds of thousands of non-combatant personel to manage and maintain those bases as well as US-located bases and the combatant-personnel they host. That's the employee base being cut right now, as well as the planned cuts to the size of the US army.

Plus, a big factor in why US military procurement items are so pricey, is that new age equipment is being designed to need less people to run. All the new US vessels being built right now, (Gerald R. Ford class CVN, America class LHA, Zumwalt class destroyers etc) are all designed to require less personnel than their predecessor's to operate effectively.

Sequestration right now is cutting personnel costs, but congress would never in a million years cut the over-priced procurement items that line the pockets of the big defence contractors. We're already hearing noises from the Pentagon and representatives and committees in congress, on how sequestration past 2016 - cutting into procurement budget- would leave a "hollow" force; as if the largest military in the world could ever be a "hollow force (save some nuclear catastrophy).
 
Last edited:

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
Again, to compare to the table we are discussiing, see this article from my state and look at the dollar amounts for Senator Kay Hagan.

.WASHINGTON: Hagan drawing homegrown cash for re-election campaign | State Politics | NewsObserver.com
We're arguing the same point. All you're doing is replacing Forbes' defense sector reliant state with Hagan's pharmaceutical and securities reliant state.

The economic sectors that provide the most jobs and the most revenue for a particular state, be it securities, defense or pharmaceuticals will always fund the candidate that best represents their interests in congress, regardless of the downsides those interests create domesticaly or abroad.

The defence contractors that profited so handsomely from the Iraq war don't give a rats's ass that the foreign policy their interests advocated for lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east or that Iraq's economy has never recovered or the security situation that war created in Iraq. In fact, they're advocating for new conflicts to improve their bottom lines, be it Syria, Iran or the subject at hand - the Asia Pacific.

The pharmaceutical companies that fund Hagan's campaign care more about their profit margins than the over-dependency on drugs that Americans have developed over the past 2 decades. Hell they'd love to make US citizenry even more drug-dependent regardless of the effects on individuals or society.

Yet their paid for representatives in congress and the executive branch will advocate for the domestic and foreign policies that conform to their interests non-the-less. You can't possibly dispute that.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I don't think you know what we're talking about. Any assertion that the US military would cut the very pilots or operators that man their aircraft or ships etc is ridiculous to say the least.

America's millitary doesn't just employ soldiers my friend. A former serving man should know that. There are over 662 over-seas bases in 130 countries that the US military operates. Some in countries as remote as Botswana in Southern Africa(saw this one myself; an Airforce Base named Thebephatshwa).

It takes hundreds of thousands of non-combatant personel to manage and maintain those bases as well as US-located bases and the combatant-personnel they host. That's the employee base being cut right now, as well as the planned cuts to the size of the US army.

Plus, a big factor in why US military procurement items are so pricey, is that new age equipment is being designed to need less people to run. All the new US vessels being built right now, (Gerald R. Ford class CVN, America class LHA, Zumwalt class destroyers etc) are all designed to require less personnel than their predecessor's to operate effectively.

Sequestration right now is cutting personnel costs, but congress would never in a million years cut the over-priced procurement items that line the pockets of the big defence contractors. We're already hearing noises from the Pentagon and representatives and committees in congress, on how sequestration past 2016 - cutting into procurement budget- would leave a "hollow" force; as if the largest military in the world could ever be a "hollow force (save some nuclear catastrophy).
I am afraid I do know how a military operates and what is downsizing. But then, you seem to be the know all. Military is your profession I presume.

Unlike you, I do not declare myself a knowall, and instead do some serious research before commenting, knowing fully well that knowalls like you will shoot off the hip for their two minutes of fame.

The US is undertaking massive restructuring plan and the U.S. Army will reduce its strength by 80,000 soldiers (note the word 'soldiers' and not auxiliary staff) over the next five years and relocate thousands of troops.

That apart, is cancelling construction projects worth $400 million.

Just to be more precise, the Army will cut between 3,500 to 5,000 troops by fully eliminating 12 active combat duty brigades at 10 Army bases across the country by 2017 in Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, New York, Kansas, and Washington, and including two bases each in Texas and Kentucky.

Further, thousands of others across the service, including those in support units of the brigades, as well as two overseas brigades located in Germany, also are slated for elimination. The downsizing of 80,000 soldiers, which will reduce the army's strength to 490,000, stands for a 14 percent reduction.

Because of the cut in combat strength, the Army may have to force several hundreds of officers to leave their jobs in order to achieve the appropriate number for troops across the hierarchy.

It is also worth noting that more cuts were in the pipeline, and as many as 100,000 more active duty, National Guard and Reserve soldiers could be downsized, if Congress approved the fiscal restraints to continue to next year.

It would be worth your while to lay your hands on Army's Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment for details before you take off with inanities like America's millitary doesn't just employ soldiers my friend. A former serving man should know that. Sadly, for you, I know more about the US military than you do and don't shoot from the hip. I go by Davy Crockett's advise – Be Sure you are Right, then Go ahead!

That puts paid to your assertion that these cuts pertain to as you put it ' It takes hundreds of thousands of non-combatant personel to manage and maintain those bases as well as US-located bases and the combatant-personnel they host.'
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I don't think you know what we're talking about. Any assertion that the US military would cut the very pilots or operators that man their aircraft or ships etc is ridiculous to say the least.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

I thought it is the Army that is downwsizing and not the Navy and the Airforce.

Have you some input that the US Navy and USAF are downsizing?

Have you some intelligence inputs on such thing happening?

Do fill us in on that, if you will.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
IMO china can never win a war with japan with their indigenous and effective "CHINESE" missiles.Jokes apart I believe a large army with poor equipment and weapons can never stand up against a smaller well equipped army that has better training.If history is to be believed great commanders like alexander, caesar and napoleon managed to win battles while being vastly outnumbered just by using armies that there were better trained and more well equipped than their foes.I am no expert in this matter so I maybe wrong.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
I am afraid I do know how a military operates and what is downsizing. But then, you seem to be the know all. Military is your profession I presume.

Unlike you, I do not declare myself a knowall, and instead do some serious research before commenting, knowing fully well that knowalls like you will shoot off the hip for their two minutes of fame.

The US is undertaking massive restructuring plan and the U.S. Army will reduce its strength by 80,000 soldiers (note the word 'soldiers' and not auxiliary staff) over the next five years and relocate thousands of troops.

That apart, is cancelling construction projects worth $400 million.

Just to be more precise, the Army will cut between 3,500 to 5,000 troops by fully eliminating 12 active combat duty brigades at 10 Army bases across the country by 2017 in Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina, New York, Kansas, and Washington, and including two bases each in Texas and Kentucky.

Further, thousands of others across the service, including those in support units of the brigades, as well as two overseas brigades located in Germany, also are slated for elimination. The downsizing of 80,000 soldiers, which will reduce the army's strength to 490,000, stands for a 14 percent reduction.

Because of the cut in combat strength, the Army may have to force several hundreds of officers to leave their jobs in order to achieve the appropriate number for troops across the hierarchy.

It is also worth noting that more cuts were in the pipeline, and as many as 100,000 more active duty, National Guard and Reserve soldiers could be downsized, if Congress approved the fiscal restraints to continue to next year.

It would be worth your while to lay your hands on Army's Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment for details before you take off with inanities like America's millitary doesn't just employ soldiers my friend. A former serving man should know that. Sadly, for you, I know more about the US military than you do and don't shoot from the hip. I go by Davy Crockett's advise – Be Sure you are Right, then Go ahead!

That puts paid to your assertion that these cuts pertain to as you put it ' It takes hundreds of thousands of non-combatant personel to manage and maintain those bases as well as US-located bases and the combatant-personnel they host.'


Hahaha! Apparently having an informed opinion amounts to "declaring know-all" status. Name calling is unbecoming of a moderator.

I've got to admit... Totally lost as to what you're arguing here, because you're basically agreeing with what me and t_co originally said and adding to what I JUST POSTED:

That's the employee base being cut right now, as well as the planned cuts to the size of the US army.
Actually, if you look closely at the budget, you'll see that procurement allocations are flat while personnel costs are down - the net amount going to defense contractors is pretty much the same; the cuts will be borne by the wives and children of US soldiers.
The US Army is part of the US military; the US military isn't just the US Army baba Ray. With every cut to combat, reserve or national guard units there is a corresponding cut to the support structures and overhead costs within the Department of Defense (ie. non-combat personnel) to compensate such that fewer cuts to combat units need to be made to satisfy the 2011 Budget Control Act A.K.A. Sequestration.

Options for Reducing Defense Budgets to Meet Funding Limits Under the Budget Control Act - CBO

In the options, CBO assumed that, when reducing the number of combat units, DoD would trim the same proportion from support units and overhead activities within the department; if DoD could not make proportional reductions in support and overhead activities, more combat units would need to be eliminated to achieve the required total reductions.
So I'll repeat what was my reply to your original quote regarding US military cuts:

The Pentagon and congress are cutting personnel costs rather that the bloated procurement and service budget that's been identified by many a liberal representative as the most ripe aspect of the budget for cuts due it its well documented unaudited ineffeciencies.

Final point, in the context of the Asia Pacific, cuts to the US Army are hardly indicative of a benign US posture; considering that none of those cuts will impact operations in the Pacific anyway. Korea is even getting additional rotations of US troops, not to mention that Air-Sea battle emphasizes Airforce, Marine and Navy basing and deployments with little US army involvement exceeding the Army personnel already being rotated through the Pacific in Japan, Korea etc.

PS. As to being a "know-all" who "shoots from the hip" (ROFL!), I pride myself in being able to verify my comments with researcheable fact. Not newspaper articles or opinion pieces in blogs, but verifiable material with factual evidence. If that makes me a "know-it-all" -whether that's meant as a jibe or insult - then I'm perfectly okay with it.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
@J20!

Let us be clear, my interaction with you started with your comment at Post #27 where you wrote to my comment:

If waging war was that simple to execute, then the world would be at war.
Ray ↑
as:

How many wars has the US fought in the past 3 decades? Which country profits most from the export of defense equipment and services? A very large and significant portion of the US economy depends by no small means on "waging war".

Many of the congressmen and women who determine US foreign policy have their campaign funds donated by the very defense contractors - BAE systems, General Dynamics, Ingalls - which benefit most from those very same wars. The very same defense companies which provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to the constituents those congressmen made campaign promises to.

Which leads to editorials in blogs and newspapers and speeches that sound and read like sales pitches for those same companies, such as this one by US representative Rep. Randy Forbes in thediplomat earlier this month: J20! ↑
The issue was waging war and the benign approach of the US military posture as indicated by its downsizing its combat personnel by a cognisable number. As anyone with an ounce of military knowledge is aware, victory in war is measured in the kilometerage captured. To do that one requires boots on the ground to capture, and then hold! Thus the downsizing indicates that the US, while retaining its strategic vision, is at the same time, positing its responsible non adventurist intent.

Hahaha! Apparently having an informed opinion amounts to "declaring know-all" status. Name calling is unbecoming of a moderator.
You mistake the sardonic intent that exposes your pretension to knowledge, as 'name calling'.

With all humility at my command I find in actuality you were purveying vacuous estimations as gems of wisdom and mistaking your ill informed and counterfeit mental meandering as 'facts'!

I've got to admit... Totally lost as to what you're arguing here, because you're basically agreeing with what me and t_co originally said and adding to what I JUST POSTED:
One would hardly construe what I wrote as ' basically agreeing with what me and t_co'

To wit, may I contend that this is yet another puerile attempt to deftly give sheen of validity to your bogus meandering as if I were only endorsing what you wrote. I would only like to suggest that it would be delightful if you quit the usual style deliberate falsifications and specious argumentations to obfuscate issues and turn them into facts to suit your postulations. One has no time for Smoke and Mirror!

I hardly think that I was endorsing this ill informed and meandering, vacuous and ignorant post of yours (Post # 53) wherein you stated:
I don't think you know what we're talking about. Any assertion that the US military would cut the very pilots or operators that man their aircraft or ships etc is ridiculous to say the least.

America's millitary doesn't just employ soldiers my friend. A former serving man should know that. There are over 662 over-seas bases in 130 countries that the US military operates. Some in countries as remote as Botswana in Southern Africa(saw this one myself; an Airforce Base named Thebephatshwa).

It takes hundreds of thousands of non-combatant personel to manage and maintain those bases as well as US-located bases and the combatant-personnel they host. That's the employee base being cut right now, as well as the planned cuts to the size of the US army.
when I brought it to your notice that the Army was downsizing and they hardly have any Ships, and that the air element of the Army was not downsizing and soldiers were being cut as along with Bases etc

Nowhere in any US document or policy (including the one you posted) have any mention of non combatants. So, what exactly are you meaning? Who are the non combatants you saw in the US Base in Botswana? The US outsources non combat productive Base activities to civilians. Iraq is one example, where haulage and activities as Camp chefs etc were done by hired labour and not combatants.

The US Army is part of the US military; the US military isn't just the US Army baba Ray. With every cut to combat, reserve or national guard units there is a corresponding cut to the support structures and overhead costs within the Department of Defense (ie. non-combat personnel) to compensate such that fewer cuts to combat units need to be made to satisfy the 2011 Budget Control Act A.K.A. Sequestration.

Options for Reducing Defense Budgets to Meet Funding Limits Under the Budget Control Act - CBO
So I'll repeat what was my reply to your original quote regarding US military cuts:

The Pentagon and congress are cutting personnel costs rather that the bloated procurement and service budget that's been identified by many a liberal representative as the most ripe aspect of the budget for cuts due it its well documented unaudited ineffeciencies.

Final point, in the context of the Asia Pacific, cuts to the US Army are hardly indicative of a benign US posture; considering that none of those cuts will impact operations in the Pacific anyway. Korea is even getting additional rotations of US troops, not to mention that Air-Sea battle emphasizes Airforce, Marine and Navy basing and deployments with little US army involvement exceeding the Army personnel already being rotated through the Pacific in Japan, Korea etc. .
No country will downsize to that extent that the country is unable to meet its strategic obligations. Therefore, to believe that the US has downsized to commit suicide is being totally naïve. Yet, at the same time, the downsizing does show a benign positing for international attention to indicate that the reckless adventurism associated with the US is a thing of the past.

PS. As to being a "know-all" who "shoots from the hip" (ROFL!), I pride myself in being able to verify my comments with researcheable fact. Not newspaper articles or opinion pieces in blogs, but verifiable material with factual evidence. If that makes me a "know-it-all" -whether that's meant as a jibe or insult - then I'm perfectly okay with it.
Your 'research' is totally spurious. Your attention span can be computed in milliseconds, but admittedly your zeal to pursue your agenda is immeasurable. It is most hilarious wherein you take the US sacrificing its defence preparedness at the expense of profit to the defence contractors!

Since you claim that your research is based on 'verifiable material with factual detail', could you show us where you have produced authentic details and not 'newspaper articles or opinion pieces in blogs'. You have merely indicated that you are self opiniated person spouting your own thoughts and passing it off as authentic 'verifiable material with factual detail'.

Another pretentious assertion as if you are walking the corridors of Powers that Be in Washington and Beijing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top