How long do you give China to be as advanced as US in the Arm Race?

[fuji]

By shooting down its aging weather satellite, China demonstrated to the world that it has fairly sophisticated anti-satellite missile technology.

China also demonstrated horrendous irresponsibility. The satellite was not shot down--it was broken up, littering that orbital layer with tens of thousands of bits of debris. A few more stunts like that and no-one will be able to put anything into space.

It's things like this that make China look like it isn't responsible enough to be entrusted with anything.

 

[Tony321]

China also demonstrated horrendous irresponsibility. The satellite was not shot down--it was broken up, littering that orbital layer with tens of thousands of bits of debris. A few more stunts like that and no-one will be able to put anything into space.

It's things like this that make China look like it isn't responsible enough to be entrusted with anything.

True, China left a mess up there after the test but they need the test.

Now I can see why the US is so scare if N Korea (lot more irresponsible than China) is capable of sending satellites in space.They could secretly put bombs in all of their satellites and explode them into million pieces and take down all or most US satellites.

 

[Don]

True, China left a mess up there after the test but they need the test.

Now I can see why the US is so scare if N Korea (lot more irresponsible than China) is capable of sending satellites in space.

The USA doesn't care about potential satellites. They care about N Korea progressing their missile technology and then selling it to countries like Iran. That is what it has always been about.

 

[WoodPeckr]

They care about N Korea progressing their missile technology and then selling it to countries like Iran.

Iran has been getting more reliable and better missile technology from RED China & Russia. Why would Iran even bother with N Korean crap?
Still believe RED China and possibly Russia are testing the US by using N Korea as a pawn here.

 

[onthebottom]

Considering the stealth fighter flew in 1979 I'd say 40-60 years is safe

OTB

 

[Tony321]

Considering the stealth fighter flew in 1979 I'd say 40-60 years is safe

OTB

LOL, you mean 4-6years, the stealth fighter has nowhere to land when its carrier is destroyed by the Chinese new killer missile.

 

[Don]

Iran has been getting more reliable and better missile technology from RED China & Russia. Why would Iran even bother with N Korean crap?

China is trying to play by the rules more as it is important for them to try and appear to be a considered a good citizen of the world. Hence they are clamping down. Same with Russia.

North Korea obviously has no qualms about it.

Still believe RED China and possibly Russia are testing the US by using N Korea as a pawn here.

That's the China side of the equation

 

[onthebottom]

LOL, you mean 4-6years, the stealth fighter has nowhere to land when its carrier is destroyed by the Chinese new killer missile.

Actually the stealth fighter that flew in 1979 is an Air Force fighter.....

I think your analysis is a bit childish.

OTB

 

[fuji]

True, China left a mess up there after the test but they need the test.

I don't believe they needed the test. No-one does. It was just an irresponsible government shamelessly posturing.

They could secretly put bombs in all of their satellites and explode them into million pieces and take down all or most US satellites.

No only US satellites, doing something like that would deny the whole human race access to space for hundreds of years. Anyone doing something like that should be brought before a competent court and then executed for crimes against humanity.

 

[fuji]

LOL, you mean 4-6years, the stealth fighter has nowhere to land when its carrier is destroyed by the Chinese new killer missile.

The US has aircraft that can reach China from bases in the continental United States. There just aren't as many of them, so loss of the carrier would mean fewer planes that could attack targets in China.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Not if the stealth fighter bombs that Chinese killer missile site first.

May be difficult to do if they are mobile launchers....

 

[nervous]

Innovation is an interesting thing...and usually takes place when people are free to explore their own ideas. Totalitarian countries are very good are copying and somewhat improving, but leading edge (i.e. military) innovation is something that is usually accomplished when when people are free.

For example in WWII the German started the war with a massive technological advantage, by the end they were at a huge disadvantage. The allies simply unleashed their innovation machine and the leaps in technological advantage were astounding. Radar is a case in point. When a central mind is giving the orders and determines where research $ should be spent, the ability to makes leaps is limited.

 

[WoodPeckr]

For example in WWII the German started the war with a massive technological advantage, by the end they were at a huge disadvantage.

Come on.... they bit off more than they could chew!
Opening up a 'two front war' with Russia doomed them.
Germany was one country. There is no way they could take over the entire world and hold it....

 

[oldjones]

Yup, the American's didn't beat the Germans to the atom bomb because they were free. It was because they didn't have to keep packing up and moving to avoid the falling bombs. And it wasn't the 'free' United Nations who invented the V2s. Still the most successful rockets in the west almost until the day the Soviets—somewhat totalitarian I'm led to believe—launched the first satellite.

Oh and BTW, in the early days of the war, the panzer divisions were mostly horse-drawn.

But in this nervous is right, it's unlikely a totalitarian state would have seen virtue in the Walkman, the iPod or even the PC. Never mind the plugin car. Ooops.

It's a person's brain that innovates, not a social system.

 

[fuji]

WW2 was won for simple logistical reasons, and the "new world order" that followed the war followed directly from the same thing.

The war was won because of this:

American factories were across the Atlantic ocean from Germany and out of reach of German bombers. German factories were within range of allied planes flying from the UK; and likewise UK factories were within range of German planes. Russia had factories in the far east that were also hard for the Germans to reach.

As a result the war saw the progressive destruction of Western Europe's manufacturing capability. By the end of the war the worlds best, most advanced factories were in America and Russia. Germany, France, the UK, etc., all saw their production capability severely diminished.

For Germany this meant losing the war to the allies, who had growing capacity in Russia and America.

Post war it meant Russia and America would dominate the global system, as they were the only nations left standing with viable manufacturing sectors--which contributed to both economic dominance, and military dominance, for both nations in the post war era.

 

[chiller_boy]

China also demonstrated horrendous irresponsibility. The satellite was not shot down--it was broken up, littering that orbital layer with tens of thousands of bits of debris. A few more stunts like that and no-one will be able to put anything into space.

.

Another way of looking at this - a few more stunts like this and China will have negated a signifigant American advantage.

 

[Cinema Face]

I'd say never, or at least never in our lifetimes. China has build an arsonal of lots of current technology weapons. The US is always working on the next generation of weapons. The US always has the best weapons technology.

China's only real advantage is manpower. They have a standing army of more than 100 million. However their strength is also their weakness. There are logistics issues with commanding and supplying that many. Also, the Chinese tend to view their boots on the ground as worthless and expendable commodities. They don't seem to have much regard for their lives.

 

[fuji]

China's only real advantage is manpower.

Have you looked recently at the ethnicity of the individuals graduating from engineering and sciences programmes at top universities?

They have a standing army of more than 100 million.

This is changing. They are well into a transformation of that army from the attrition oriented force that you refer to, to a modern, high tech, much smaller fighting force.

 

[oldjones]

If you don't think the Chinese are working on the next generation of weapons, Cinema Face, you were likely away when they taught who invented gunpowder, printing and such while the west couldn't heat their castles. These are not stupid people and there's a reason they're learning how to do modern manufacturing as fast as we're forgetting. And we don't really know what they're working on in secret, do we? But that was a humongous payload they launched a while ago.

There's nothing exclusive about brains, everybody's got'em. And if you think, "The US always has the best weapons technology" is some kinda natural law, how do you account for the AK-47 as the worldwide weapon of choice for guys who get to pick their own?

As the US discovered in Iraq—after half a decade—it's the boots on the ground that count; all the other stuff's just the means of getting them there. One guy=one ration pack, one pair of boots, one tent, one ammo pack—logistics vary by location, stuff and distance, not frontline numbers, and the US has one hell of a logistical tail with cooks and medics and JAGs and such in the rear. I'd bet the Chinese tail is lots skinnier. If you don't care about casualties (debatable) then MASH units and War Grave Regitrars don't clg your supply lines. Length? Heck, it's just as far from here to China, as from China to here, but there's more of them to hold down when the Yanks get there. Sorta like Russia's always been (See also: Napoleon, Hitler). Oh I know we're not talking about going to war, but how esle do you decide who 'wins' an arms race if you're dumb enough to go to one?

Speaking of winning, if you don't care about losses, you win the battles the guy who does care won't commit to. Never mind that high-tech, whether military or civilian, busts easier than low and needs high-tech, industry supported fixes. Low tech, just needs a hammer. Or a rock. And never mind that facing China's a bit like having many dozens of WTCs, or hundreds of thousands of villages to take out with your couple of jetliners. Size matters. And the guys who can make their own last generation sandals out of tires will likely whip the guys who need next-generation air-conditioned staff tents.

But if we can keep the boys from actually using their toys, and just have parades and posturing—take a look at how the mortal enemies India and Pakistan do their border guards sometime—then the US likely has a good long run ahead still. And prettier uniforms and cooler trucks (as long as there's a US auto company still around to make' em) to start with.

Best bet: Train figure skating judges to score marching contests before things get outta hand. Arms races only have losers.

 

[Cinema Face]

Nobody said that they’re stupid people. Yes the Chinese invented gunpowder and lots of other things when the Europeans were living in caves. Today, most Chinese people have never seen a phone or a computer. They are still a mostly peasant nation living in a communist police state. Yes. China has recently become an industrial force in the last few decades but they still have a long way to go to match the US.

The US has superior weapons technology because they have resources and the infrastructure to develop them. China has a long way to go to get to that level.

Your example of an AK47 as being a superior weapon must be some kind of joke. You obviously know nothing about guns. The Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 is a design more than 60 years old. The Kalashnikov is probably one of the worst assault rifles ever made. It’s crude and horibly inaccurate. It’s really only good at close range or used to lay down cover fire. The American M16 is a superior rifle in every way, except one. The M16 has been in service since Veitnam and it’s still used today but the US has more advanced guns designs also in use.

The AK47 has one advantage. It will never jam. You can drag it through the mud and it will still fire. A bow and arrow will also never jam. A bow and arrow can be dragged through the mud. It doesn’t make it a superior weapon to a machine gun.

The reason that the AK47 is used in every 3rd world country is that the Russians made millions and millions of them intended for WWIII. Then with the collapse of the Soviet Union and with the help of a lot of corrupt officials missing a few paychecks they sold off their arsonals to these 3rd world dictators. The AK47 is so plentiful and so cheap that it can be bought for the price of a chicken in the open markets.

I agree that boots on the ground count. However you can’t compare conventional warfare to asymetrical urban guerilla warfare where the civilian population is sympathetic to the guerillas and the established power is trying not to kill unarmed civilians. That’s a very difficult combat situation but the Americans did it better than the Russians did in Afghanistan.

I agree that the high tech stuff breaks down more than the low tech but if you were a fighter pilot, which one would you rather be in? Would you rather be flying a bi-plane Sopwith Camel or an F-22 Raptor? I think the F-22 would flame a lot of Camels before it broke.

Finally, the Americans probably are the leaders in logistics of any military on earth. From what I read, operation enduring freedom was a model of efficiency. It was the first military application of RFID technology to mark the millions and millions of crates of supplies.