Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览弗雷德·里德(Fred Reed)档案
中国海蓝调:无事可做
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

看来,一向充满聪明想法的华盛顿正在寻找与中国的枪战,或者试图让中国磕头退缩,借口是美国不可能拥有的太平洋上的一些岩石至关重要的国家利益。 或者,真的,任何兴趣。 如果中国人不退缩?

文森斯。 前面四四方方的东西是雷达。 它没有硬化。

文森斯。 前面四四方方的东西是雷达。 它没有硬化。

几年前,我登上了 USS Vincennes,CG-49,一艘 Tico 级宙斯盾船,当时是海军技术的前沿。 这是一艘宏伟的船,速度很快,由一对客机涡轮机提供动力,并搭载了当时非常高科技的 SPY-1 相控阵雷达。 CIC 是黑暗的,装有空调,巨大的屏幕发光——当时令人印象深刻——显示空中目标的各种信息。 下面是标准导弹,然后是一种链传动,但后来在使用垂直发射系统的船上。 正如他们在拉雷多所说的那样, 穆伊星球大战。 (文森斯号是后来击落伊朗客机的船。)

作为一个技术爱好者,我钦佩地接受了所有这些,但我想——如果它被击中怎么办? 在我十几岁的时候,我读过关于二战的战舰,卡罗莱纳州,尤其是爱荷华级的战舰,快速、野蛮的战舰,带有 XNUMX 英寸的皮带装甲和小行星会弹开的炮塔。 假设是船只会被击中。 它们是为了生存和继续战斗而建造的。

相比之下,文森号的外壳很薄,外壳是铝而不是钢,而对战斗至关重要的雷达看起来非常脆弱。 任何严重的东西,甚至可能是 cal .50,但肯定会被任何类似 GAU-8 的东西击中,她会 开战 直到重新安装。

爱荷华州,BB-61。 应海军的邀请,我在诺福克登上了她的船。 它改变了我对枪支的欣赏。 我离开时想,如果你不能爬进去,那它就不是真正的枪。 扎实的:珍珠港事件后没有战舰沉没是有原因的。

爱荷华州,BB-61. 应海军的邀请,我在诺福克登上了她的船。 它改变了我对枪支的欣赏。 我离开时想,如果你不能爬进去,那它就不是真正的枪。 扎实的:珍珠港事件后没有战舰沉没是有原因的。

一击。

我也很清楚海军玩红队和蓝队的战争游戏,我们自己的潜艇——当时主要是 688 型潜艇——试图“击沉”水面舰队。 这个想法是,如果潜艇可以进入射击位置,它会发出绿色信号弹。 如果记忆服务于 Mk 48 ADCAP 鱼雷,那么潜艇就会运行,这是一种长距离的邪恶线导鱼雷。 水手们告诉我,潜艇总是“沉没”水面力量。

当我在五角大楼的海军公关部门 CHINFO 上提到这一点时,flacks 告诉我,潜在的坏人只有轻巧的柴电潜艇,远不如我们的核潜艇,而且在公海无法靠近舰队。 是的,不,也许,然后。 和我说话听起来很愉快。 在二战中,柴电当然进入了水面舰艇的范围,也许最著名的例子是弓箭鱼沉没信浓号。

DF-21D 反舰(读作:反航母)导弹。 这不是详细介绍的地方,但中国拥有旨在杀死航母的反舰弹道导弹,并且正在研制其他无法真正拦截的高超音速滑翔飞行器。 我不知道他们工作得如何。 如果我是携带者,我会强调不去发现。

DF-21D 反舰(阅读:反航母)导弹。 这不是详细介绍的地方,但中国拥有旨在杀死航母的反舰弹道导弹,并且正在研制其他无法真正拦截的高超音速滑翔飞行器。 我不知道他们工作得如何。 如果我是携带者,我会强调不去发现。

我对中国海军知之甚少,多年来一直没有涉足这个圈子。 我确实知道中国人很聪明,他们已经优化了他们的力量,专门在他们的领土附近消灭航母战斗群。 他们不会试图在美国想要打的那种战争中与美国的舰船相提并论。 他们会输得很快,他们知道这一点。 关键是让巡航导弹同时抵达舰队,并可能伴随着大量飞机。 这行得通吗? 我不知道,但这肯定是我打赌的方式。

海军已经七十年没有打仗了。 它已经离开了各个海岸并发射了飞机,但舰队还没有投入使用。 几十年的无所作为,自满情绪开始了。不幸的是,战争经常出乎意料地发生。 此外,美军对战争的标准做法是低估敌人(这方面可能有手册)。

此外,巨大的情感和财务资本存在于航母战斗群中,这是人类最令人印象深刻的成就之一。 (我的意思是:夜间飞行行动所涉及的技术、组织和能力……“惊人”这个词太微弱了。)

这确保了在面对不断变化的条件时不愿质疑舰队的有效性。 如高马赫、隐身、机动、掠海巡航导弹。 或末端制导的反舰弹道导弹。 美国习惯于与无法还手的敌人作战。 这可能不包括中国人。

福莱斯特号航母,1967 年。一枚祖尼导弹意外发射。 一场大火接踵而至,炸弹烧毁,134 人遇难,这艘船被毁坏,很长时间没有服役。 一枚五英寸的导弹。 需要考虑的事情。

1967 年,福莱斯特号航母. 一枚祖尼导弹意外发射。 一场大火接踵而至,炸弹烧毁,134 人遇难,这艘船被毁坏,很长时间没有服役。 一枚五英寸的导弹。 需要考虑的事情。

还有一个事实是,美国军队根本不重要,这减少了人们对它是否可以战斗以及它可以与谁战斗的担忧。 它不保卫美国,因为没有什么可以保卫它。 (哪个国家最有可能入侵美国?)所以军队被用于本质上是业余战争,让以色列开心,为军火公司提供市场,以及社会工程:我们有女船员,她们在损害控制,但我们假设永远不会有任何损害控制。

呃……是的。 证据是这些船很脆弱:

如果在一场枪战中,中国人摧毁了美国舰队,会发生什么? 华盛顿的自负猖獗,尤其是来自创伤后应激障碍的参议员约翰麦凯恩。 如果发现中国可以禁用海军,许多其他国家可能会得出结论,他们也可以这样做。 他们肯定会想到这一点。 华盛顿无法接受这一发现:对航母的恐惧是华盛顿恐吓世界的一大因素。 为了面子,美国会动用核武器,或者严重轰炸中国,结果无法预料。

斯塔克号航空母舰,1987 年。被伊拉克海市蜃楼发射的两枚飞鱼导弹击中。

史塔克号航空母舰,1987 年。 被伊拉克幻影发射的两枚飞鱼导弹击中。

空军和海军可以通过常规手段对中国造成严重伤害,是的,例如切断中东的石油,或摧毁三峡大坝。 由于各种原因,这将是在玩火。 任何这些聪明想法的经济结果都是可怕的。

华盛顿似乎没有意识到,它所拥有的军事力量比它认为的要少得多,而且它所拥有的力量比以前更没用了。 作为一个陆上大国,它非常弱小,无法击败俄罗斯、中国或手持步枪和RPG的农民。 空中力量经常被证明是优柔寡断的。

USS Cole,2000 年。在小船上被自杀者炸毁。

科尔号航空母舰,2000 年。 在一艘小船上被自杀者炸毁。

如果华盛顿以某种方式赢得了与中国的海战,那又如何? 它将提供虚荣心的满足,但中国对美国帝国的威胁在于通过亚洲增强经济实力和商业扩张,它在亚洲拥有高手:它在那里,华盛顿不在。 远太平洋的轰轰烈烈,即使成功,也不会阻止中国的商业扩张,失败将永远终结海军的信誉。

正如我所说,华盛顿充满了聪明的想法。

(从重新发布 弗雷德对一切 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 对外政策 •标签: 美国军事, 中国, 中国南海 
隐藏201条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. Good work Fred.

    I’m thinking that if the human race destroys itself with destructive weapons that they are not worthy to possess there will be no one to say it. So I will say it now. Good riddance.

  2. When I was in the USAF in the 1980s, it was painfully obvious that ships could not survive the first five minutes of battle with a truly competent air power.

    • 回复: @unpc downunder
  3. anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    The US has committed itself to building an entire fleet of new super-carriers, the Gerald Ford class. Check it out, it’s a huge project of next generation carriers. Somebody is doing the thinking and planning-and spending-on this. They’re rolling the dice on this one.

  4. [Engaging in “sock-puppetry”—using multiple names to deceive other commenters—is a serious violation of the rules. If you repeat this misbehavior, all your future comments may be summarily trashed.]

    Bring it on! China is our blood enemy and will always be our enemy as long as it exists untamed by another nation.

    That’s why I’m voting for Trump. He will show China who’s boss, he will tear up trade agreements, repudiate debt, and will nuke Beijing

  5. 弗雷德

    If you haven’t already you might want to pick up and read 幽灵舰队:下一次世界大战的小说, by August Cole and P. W. Singer

    It’s a techno thriller of a future war in about 10 years with China. It’s in the spirit of Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Raising from the 80’s. The slant of the book is rather critical of the U.S. Navy now and it’s future plans to fight a Pacific war with China.

    • 回复: @Jeff77450
  6. Hey Fred, when you were laying out the photographs of USN ships that have been engaged over the past 70 years, you forgot 2, the USS Liberty and the USS Pueblo.

  7. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    里德先生

    I love your social commentary, but you are especially excellent when applying your eye to military matters.

    S / F

  8. The new LCS trimaran is made with an aluminum hull and runs on jet fuel. The Arleigh Burke class destroyer’s bridge is 1/4″ steel. They hung flak jacket armor around the bridge as an after thought.

    These ships can indeed be stopped with big rifled weapons. A hit from an HE she’ll will be devastating.

  9. The U.S. may not have lost any battleships after Pearl Harbor, but battleships proved to be quite vulnerable throughout the Pacific war. 4 U.S. battleships were sunk at Pearl Harbor (Arizona, Oklahoma, West Virginia, California). The West Virginia and California were only recoverable because the attack occurred in the shallow water of Pearl Harbor. Had the Japanese attack occurred out at sea, all four ships would have ended up 2 miles down.

    The British lost the Prince of Wales (a battleship) and Repulse (a battlecruiser) on December 10th, 1941 to a Japanese aerial attack. Since they were sunk in the open ocean, no recovery was possible.

    Later in the war the U.S. sunk numerous Japanese battleships. Notably, the U.S. sank (using aircraft) the Yamato and the Musashi. Yamato and Musashi were the largest battleships ever built (by any country). They proved to be militarily useless other than as target practice for the Americans.

    A key conclusion from naval combat in WWII was the superiority of thin-hulled aircraft carriers over heavily armored battleships. Both the U.S. and Japan lost several aircraft carriers to enemy action. However, the ability of aircraft carriers to strike at range provided to far more important than armor and heavy guns.

    • 回复: @Peter Schaeffer
    , @Vendetta
  10. The story of the Forrestal is a bit more complex. The accidentally fired missile did only limited damage. However, the subsequent fires and explosions were devastating. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuiyXQKw3Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxP4AtGBnTs. Of course, a similar chain reaction would still be possible today.

    Broadly stated, it is probably true that U.S. carriers are highly vulnerable in a new Pacific war. If the U.S. is serious about maintaining a significant military presence in the region, we need to shift to land bases. The availability of land bases in the region will partially depend on China’s conduct. If China scares its neighbors enough, they will probably give the U.S. basing rights. Otherwise, not so much.

    • 回复: @Vendetta
    , @Dave Pinsen
  11. It seems clear to me now that the idiots in Washington are going to steer us into World War III. Obama’s decision to send troops into Syria is an especially boneheaded move. I don’t mean to channel Richard Jordan from 猎杀红色十月, but did anybody stop to think that having Russian forces and ours in such close proximity might touch of some sort of incident?

    The United States’ empire will not survive the next general mobilization. It doesn’t matter a hill of beans what happens after the shooting starts, because the war effort alone will finish us off. We are too bloated, sclerotic, inefficient, unrealistic, and far too much in debt.

  12. can’t we live in peace? why can’t we compete in economy?

    destroying the 3 gorges dam = the same as nuking that area. there is nothing conventional about it. china would retaliate with nukes or conventional missiles aim at our nuke power plants.

    I want a future so I can have kids and a family 🙁

    • 回复: @koala
  13. @Peter Schaeffer

    proved to far more important than armor and heavy guns.

  14. Bruce 说:

    Fred- If the USN sent a battleship, or, nowadays, some sort of shallow-water assault ship through the Spratlys? Something thick-skinned and capable of shouldering through enemy fire? That would be BAD. The Chinese would be right to see it as a provocation at best and a possible real attack by Washington’s idiots. A thin-skinned chock-full of sensors long-range guided rocket thingy cruiser? All those sensors give us useful data if they have anything sneaky there. Thin-skinned means it poses no physical threat. It could still be a terrible idea, but for all I know it might be a good idea.

    • 回复: @Johann Ricke
  15. @The Grate Deign

    This is why France and Britain spend a large portion of their military budgets on nuclear submarines.

    Also, why does the US park all its incredibly expensive supercarriers in Norfolk, West Viriginia. Has the US navy forgotten about its narrow escape at Pearl Harbour.

    Tora, Tora ! or should that be Allah Ackbar!

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  16. HLMunchkin 说:

    The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni missile was fired accidentally. Yes a terrible accident.

  17. unit472 说:

    I would share your concern about the viability of the carrier except that China, Russia, Britain, France and other nations all want carriers too. Either all the admirals of the world are stupid or a mobile airbase is essential to a modern navy.

    The Falklands war proved the indispensability of naval aviation but also the vulnerability of surface ships to both air, guided missile and submarine attack. Argentina did not have the means to locate the UK carriers or aircraft with the range to attack them but that does not mean China would be similarly challenged today. It also does not mean the USN would sit there and allow its carriers to be located and attacked. That maybe the real problem. In order to protect or defeat a carrier task force a minor confrontation could quickly escalate into an all out war to take out the command and control capability of the enemy.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  18. It is well known that Dutch and Danish diesel-subs ‘killed’ U.S. carriers in Int. Naval excercises.

    I share Fred’s fear that by sinking a carrier, and thus killing thousands of sailors, U.S politicians will want to go nucleair. Lets hope the Chinese are indeed wise and go easy on the U.S. Navy.

    Sardonic that militaries have to be more fearfull of the U.S. politicians then the professional U.S. warfighters.

  19. Jeff77450 说:
    @George Taylor

    Thank you for the heads-up. I will try to read this.

  20. Jeff77450 说:

    Mr. Reed, a fascinating article that has given me much “food for thought.” I’m a retired soldier, E-8, and I can’t claim to know much about naval matters.

    That said, the take-away lesson from WWII is supposed to be that appeasement of a “bully” nation in the beginning produces a worse end-result than dealing with it decisively when the aggression first starts. Nations that are not a product of Christian values don’t interpret “turn the other cheek” and “come, let us reason together” as a form of strength, they interpret it as weakness. I’m not a fan of the current administration–to. put. it. mildly.–but I believe that we should make it clear that we do not recognize China’s “sovereignty” over this patch of ocean.

    May God help us all if I’m wrong.

    • 回复: @Big Bill
    , @Randal
    , @annamaria
  21. Considering the lethality of modern weapons is there any way to fight through a slug-it-out heavyweight war again?

    Like the very difficult to maintain antlers of a male moose, part of the functionality of modern weapons is to avoid having to fight too many smaller but aggressive challengers. The larger moose might whip 20 challengers in a row, but eventually the toll of repeated combat would deplete his system until he was vulnerable. Large, heavy antlers bear a high biological cost to grow and maintain, but pay off by intimidating challengers, they are not really good weapons.

    The U.S. assumed the job of World Police when it entered WWI and saved the Allies bacon. Many peace-loving Americans did not want the job and we disarmed, but upon learning at Pearl Harbor that it is a “blood-in blood-out” deal found it “necessary” to fight WWII. As the winds of public opinion shift we want out of the job again.

    This is a tough world and without a policeman on the block things are not going to be peaceful. As I said to Fred in another post, I would prefer we had never taken the job in the first place, but we did. I’m too old to care whether or not we try to keep the job, but people should not be fooled into thinking we can just walk away. The winds of public opinion will shift again and it’s Blood-in Blood-out.

    Jeffers saw this long ago:

    We shall have to hold half the earth: we shall be sick with self-disgust,
    And hated by friend and foe, and hold half the earth—or let it go, and go
    down with it. Here is a burden
    We are not fit for. We are not like Romans and Britons—natural
    world-rulers,
    Bullies by instinct—but we have to bear it. Who kissed Fate on the
    mouth, and blown out the lamp—must lie with her.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=n_UytKkgbbMC&pg=PA580&lpg=PA580&dq=Jeffers+historical+choice&source=bl&ots=kcnPvsLRNh&sig=o8OOeJmFXXi9F_g1kkncPgfXnZE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAWoVChMIm4KY1eLsyAIVCTYmCh37ewlk#v=onepage&q=Jeffers%20historical%20choice&f=false

    • 回复: @Big Bill
    , @Vendetta
  22. anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    War really is in the air isn’t it? Everywhere one goes there’s always talk of it along with the news stories of military confrontation, potential or real, here and there. Is all this like the leaves being blown around before the storm? If something big were to happen then who is supposed to go and fight the wars brought upon us? People aren’t going to let their children get drafted and be sent to die for the Spratly islands, a place no one knew existed.
    Various countries are developing and becoming stronger. They want a piece of the action in their neck of the woods. The US wants to cling to the past where it had dominance everywhere throughout the globe. The world is going to be re-divided one way or another, with war or without it.

  23. @Hare Krishna

    (What is the correct form of address to use when addressing a sock puppet? Emily Post could not have imagined.) Well, here goes:

    Dear Knitted Mask: Your comment, obviously meant to be ironic and oh-so-witty, is anything but.

    Please stop wasting your time, our time, computer memory, and electrons.

    感谢。

  24. For two centuries, the United States Navy has been the premier protector of open international waters.

    Driving ships through those waters, to the consternation of those who would claim and steal them from the world, is how we have performed this service that no one else has the balls to do.

    US Navy ships are sovereign American territory, fragile or not. An attack on them is an attack on our country, and everyone knows that. When we sail where we insist everyone has the right to, we are making an important point, yes, at risk of war. There is no other way to keep sea lanes open.

    Maybe we should just take our balls and go home — or move to Mexico like Fred.

    China no more owns the South China Sea than Mexico owns the Gulf of Mexico.

    • 回复: @another fred
    , @Vendetta
  25. Big Bill 说:
    @Jeff77450

    There are plenty of “bully nations” around the world for us to attack. Always have been. Yet we don’t. Why? Further, if China is a “bully nation” it has been so at least since it went Commie 65 years ago.

    So why did we shut down our factories and R&D and transfer them to the biggest “bully nation” on the planet?

    And why have we not taken much simpler and less risky and confrontational ways to deal with China, the big bully nation, like reducing Chinese student visas in STEM, putting tariffs on Chinese goods, etc.?

    Only a moron would hand a gun to a bully and then “put up his dukes” for a fist fight.

    Only a moron would cripple himself, transfer his high tech to a bully, and then sent one single freaking ship to the bully’s homeland to pick a fight.

    Son, the “aggression first started” over 65 years ago at the end of WWII.

    • 回复: @Seoulsurvivor
  26. Big Bill 说:
    @another fred

    Why do you say we can’t just “walk away”? The Earth needs one ruler? Heck, we can “walk away” from being World Ruler the same way we “walked into” it.

    For starters, we can rebuild our own nation with our own people.

    As Europe is learning to its horror, voluntarily cutting off your own [电子邮件保护] and relying on Big Daddy to take care of you turns you into a gormless dweeb who can be invaded and overrun by a bunch of Muslim moms and sprogs.

    • 回复: @another fred
  27. @Buzz Mohawk

    For two centuries, the United States Navy has been the premier protector of open international waters.

    Minor quibble.

    Most historians date our role as “premier protector” from about the time of the Battles of the North Atlantic, Midway, and Coral Sea. In the lead-up to WWII both the Germans and Japanese were furiously building navies while we idled along. Before that Brittania ruled the waves.

    • 回复: @Vendetta
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  28. Attacking a carrier group would be an act of war, something the Chinese would never do unless they were ok with all out war.
    The US can sail through the contested waters and China will do nothing but complain.

    • 回复: @Randal
    , @Vendetta
  29. @Big Bill

    Why do you say we can’t just “walk away”?

    What follows is my 意见.

    True enough, we could, but I believe we won’t. Did you notice how quickly people were ready to bust somebody after 9/11? Public opinion would not let us take the consequences of walking away.

    Our walking away would mean existential threats to several nations, starting with Taiwan and Israel and going God knows how far. Lots of people would be OK with that but lots would not. There would also be economic consequences and that sways public opinion.

    Regardless of what we do, once the crap starts we would deal ourselves in because of public opinion.

    I believe we have been locked into this course since WWI, and if you look at history we were probably locked in to WWI.

    The wars are coming, period. You did not ask, but I think we should focus almost all of our efforts towards avoiding a full nuclear exchange with another major power. That is the best we can hope for. Billions are going to die without a full exchange, mankind probably dies with one.

    We should privately discuss with the Russians and Chinese that we will not consider a launch by one of the smaller powers (and future smaller powers) as a reason to launch.

    • 回复: @annamaria
    , @geokat62
  30. Randal 说:
    @Jeff77450

    That said, the take-away lesson from WWII is supposed to be that appeasement of a “bully” nation in the beginning produces a worse end-result than dealing with it decisively when the aggression first starts.

    It’s probably a good lesson in some circumstances, but the problem from my perspective is that as far as I can see the bully nation today is the US, in the Middle East, in Ukraine and in the seas around China.

    The US also bullied many smaller countries in its earlier days as it rose in strength, from Mexico and Hawaii to the Philippines via numerous South and Central American countries. Just part of adjusting to new realities. Same in the area around China, where the US is the old power welding excess influence due to past weakness on China’s part and due to old wars, as Britain was in the Monroe Doctrine areas. Time for the US to butt out as Britain did.

    • 同意: Orville H. Larson
    • 回复: @Orville H. Larson
  31. Vendetta 说:
    @Peter Schaeffer

    The one amusing exception that proves the rule would be the sinking of the carrier HMS Glorious in the Norway campaign by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Only carrier to go down to gunfire, unless I’m forgetting a couple escort carriers in the Battle of Samar.

    • 回复: @Peter Schaeffer
  32. Randal 说:
    @greysquirrell

    The US can sail through the contested waters and China will do nothing but complain.

    If the Chinese have any sense they will respond by making life more difficult for the US elsewhere, such as in Syria where the US seems to be floundering around hopelessly and helplessly.

    • 回复: @Lion of Zion
    , @greysquirrell
  33. Vendetta 说:
    @Peter Schaeffer

    Land bases are a bit of a problem too if they’re anywhere inside China’s ballistic missile launch range, but at least they won’t sink.

    What we’d really need for a serious war would be a dispersed network of small bases rather than a few big ones the Chinese could pulverize with concentrated missile bombardment.

    What we need to avoid most of all of course is having that war in the first place.

    • 回复: @Peter Schaeffer
  34. annamaria 说:
    @Hare Krishna

    “He will show China who’s boss, he will tear up trade agreements, repudiate debt, and will nuke Beijing”
    1. Doesn’t the US Army exist, first and foremost, for protecting the supremacy of the UD dollar?
    2. Who is going to make the super-cheap stuff for the US? As everybody knows, the US neoliberals & neocons “took care” of the US industries.
    3. What if China (and Russia) nuke DC back?
    4. Last time we heard “bring it on” from Bush the lesser, the result was a $1.7 trillion-extraction from the US taxpayers’ pockets: “The Iraq war has cost American taxpayers $1.7 trillion in direct expenses. It owes an addition $90 billion in benefits to war veterans. Ultimately, expenses could grow to more than $6 trillion, including interest”
    祝你好运!

    • 回复: @Orville H. Larson
  35. Vendetta 说:
    @greysquirrell

    They’ll figure out some way to annoy us back. It’s not that hard.

    Maybe Liaoning joins the next cruise off Alaska. Or maybe they drop some shipping crates off a cargo plane in front of the next U.S. ship to come through and make it play Guess If That’s a Mine You’re About to Hit. Or maybe we end up with another big cyberattack on our hands.

    • 回复: @greysquirrell
  36. Vendetta 说:
    @another fred

    The Washington naval treaties already set the United States Navy at a par alongside the British in terms of ship tonnage. We went into WWII with fifteen active battleships (and ten new ones under construction). The Germans only managed to build the two Bismarcks and the two undergunned Scharnhorsts, while the Japanese had a grand total of twelve if you count four badly outdated ones that hardly ever sortied plus four Kongōs that were badly under armored.

    Germans only ever got ahead of anybody in numbers of submarines, and Japanese only had a short leg up on us in aircraft carriers until Midway.

    Japan was fully aware of the strength of the American battle fleet, hence its focus on unconventional weapons and tactics – night fighting, aircraft carriers, the Long Lance torpedo, etc., in the hopes of evening the long odds against them.

  37. Vendetta 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    How many lives would you trade for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, rounded to the nearest million?

    • 回复: @Buzz Mohawk
  38. Vendetta 说:
    @another fred

    Yes, the U.S. actually could mobilize and fight a full-scale, multi-year aware against a peer adversary.

    The thing is, once it was over, we’d be facing a financial catastrophe unprecedented in the history of the nation. Fully mobilizing, retooling all industry for war, and of course operating our armies and fleets overseas in campaigns where we’d actually be suffering significant losses, would require an insane magnitude of borrowing and deficit spending.

    Imagine a national debt in the region of $300-500 trillion afterward, I think that’s about the neighborhood of just how screwed we’d be as soon as this war ended.

  39. Vendetta 说:
    @Vendetta

    Assuming we even won in the first place. The U.S. could most likely wipe out the the Russian or Chinese air and naval forces eventually if it was willing to take some very, very serious losses of its own, but I don’t see us waging a successful ground campaign against either of them. Both are just too damn big.

    We could hold the Russians back in Poland or Turkey, or the Chinese in South Korea or Taiwan, but any attempt at invading either of these countries on the ground would turn into disaster.

  40. @Vendetta

    Well-reasoned, Vendetta.

    Except for one thing: A nation needs troops to fight a war. One of the first things that would happen in a “full-scale, multi-year aware” with, let’s say, China would be a NYT article: “Casualties in the Hainan Island Offensive: Why are a Greater Percentage of Black Troops Getting Killed? Congress Demands Answers as Pentagon Flounders”. Next article: “Pregnancies among WACS Skyrocket as Reality of Long War Hits Home. 46,000 Military Women Given Medical Discharges. Pentagon Pressed to Enlist Gang Members from Inner Cities to Fill Gap”. Next article: “Mutiny aboard USS Vincennes as Kwanzaa Uhuru Gang Wins Loyalty of Black Sailors”.

    You get the message.

  41. I like Fred in most things but sometimes I think he has a tendency to assign better motives to U.S. adversaries than their behavior indicates. It’s sort of a feature of his curmudgeonly contrarianism. (For example, he was overly kind and generous to candidate Obama in 2007 in spite of the evidence, which caused me to stop reading him).

    I’ll demur that U.S. political and military leaders may be venal, jingoistic, chauvinistic third rate minds beholden to domestic military hardware producers, but what is the evidence that the political and military leadership of our likely adversaries isn’t at least as bad? It seems a bit of cheap grace to pretend that Chinese militarism and expansionism is simply a matter of the Chinese reacting to Western provocations rather than imperial design. (Why, if its concerns are its sphere of influence in Asia, is China messing about in African affairs?) In the end, if all of the major players are just as bad as the U.S. is in Fred’s esteem, that’s reason enough for the U.S. doing what it is doing if not more.

    • 回复: @annamaria
    , @rod1963
    , @Stan D Mute
  42. As was Britain following the First World War and even more so following the Second World War, today the U.S. is beyond broke, deep in crippling debt. In modern terms it’s the nation-states with the big, healthy, robust economies that win the all-out wars.

    The new dimension, absent from previous all-out wars, is the domain of cyberspace.

    Prognostications to how the battle in cyberspace – essentially a battle (likely also to include space warfare against the foe’s space-based sensors, communications, GPS, &c.) to destroy the foe’s intelligence apparati, sensor arrays, and command, communications & control – would pan out in an all-out war are as useful as a screen door on a submarine. There in cyberwarfare lies the Great Unknown – not the physically fragile shipborne sensor arrays or aluminum hulls of U.S. Navy surface warships, which form a greater vulnerability in low-level conflict but form a much smaller factor in an all-out war.

    The precursor for cyberwarfare came in the Second World War when Allied intelligence & intelligence sensor technology (MAGIC, PURPLE, ULTRA, plus advances in radar sensors and radar-defeating countermeasures such as WINDOW/CHAFF and jamming, and all the electronic methods of spoofing and defeating the Nazi U-boat arm, such as HF/DF, shipborne & airborne radar) were far superior to Axis intelligence and Axis intelligence sensor technology (in WWI the British Admiralty had some earlier, significant success with its Room 40 signals intelligence). The Allies ability to read in near real-time a substantial proportion of Axis communications gave the Allies, especially the Western Allies, a considerable advantage. So too in a next all-out war will the superior cyberwarfare power own a considerable advantage over its foe(s) so again, for any future all-out war therein lies the Great Unknown.

    A smaller Great Unknown lies in the West’s apparent 自主性 vulnerability from its admission to its most secret defense R&D and operational systems of future enemies’ human spies and saboteurs via Perpetual Mass Third World Imminvasion (because “Diversity Makes Us Strong!” and the press of greed for NAFTA-GATT-TPP Globalism). Would anyone care to venture a guess at how many Chinese – for just one example of foreign nationals – in our midst and indeed in our most sensitive technological nodes are moles, sleeper agents or saboteurs, &c? China, on the other hand, seems not to have such human interloper vulnerability.

  43. @Vendetta

    仇杀,

    See “List of United States Navy losses in World War II” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II). The list may not be correct. It does show that the Gambier Bay (an escort carrier) was lost to Japanese naval (surface) units off of Samar.

    If I remember correctly, aircraft carriers were generally faster and more valuable than battleships in WWII. Hence, they were able to either outrun battleships or were kept away from them. Since they could strike at range that was acceptable.

  44. @Vendetta

    仇杀,

    Land bases are easy to target because they don’t move. However, the amount of damage missiles can do is limited (barring the use of nuclear warheads). Runways can be patched. Damaged aircraft can be replaced. Once a carrier sinks, it is gone. Even damaged carriers need months in port for repairs.

    However, more broadly I agree with your observations. If the U.S. is serious about maintaining a military presence in the Western Pacific, we need lots of land bases. If the countries of the region aren’t willing to provide those bases, we should let them enjoy their relationship with China.

    Of course, there is always the larger question about whether the U.S. should care about China’s relationship with its neighbors.

    • 回复: @Ace
  45. Priss Factor [又名“普里斯工厂”] 说: • 您的网站

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/ban-ki-moon-condemns-the-american-stand-on-syria-endorses-putins.html

    Shiite. Spanky Moon said something courageous.

    What’s next? Will donkeys fly?

  46. This contretemps should not be a USA vs China one, yet it is. These artificial islands only exist to anchor China’s claim of territorial waters exclusion zones in the middle of international shipping lanes. That means that this is an international economic issue. China is attempting to establish a chokehold on waters through which a vast amount of international commerce travels. Viewed internationally, this should not be allowed.

    To Fred’s point, our Navy may not be up to the challenge of a limited war with the PRC in which our expensive, thin-skinned assets are forfeited. Fred is, I think, wrong about a vital US interest. The whole world has had and will have, a vital interest in free navigation of world commerce.

    This situation just points out the futility of what some insist on calling the “World Community.” There is no world community willing to assert basic norms like freedom of the seas.

    So coalitions must step in to assert basic principles. What I fear and I think Fred fears is that the idiots who run our republic are rushing in to fight the civilized worlds battles, unwisely and uncompensated. I want to see Japan, Taiwan, Australia and all the other stake-holders get put up a believable alliance. Absent this, we should step back and see what our allies are capable and willing to do on their own.

    One overlooked solution to those who seek power by blocking trade is technology and “Go-arounds.” Why must so much commerce travel through these waters? When the Muslims grew fat on dominating trade between East and West, Europe simply went around with superior maritime technology. The Muslims never thrived again until we found oil under their sandals. Something of the sort could happen again.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Vendetta
    , @Wizard of Oz
  47. John 说:

    Good post. If a naval war breaks out, the U.S. will still win hands down, but will pay a terrible price. Having said that, I don’t think that this is going to happen. Both the U.S. and China have smart and competent leadership, unlike the Saddam regime that failed to understand the red line that should not be crossed.

    Instead, what will happen is that the U.S. sends war ship, maybe with ally navies. The Chinese retaliate through other means, maybe economics. In the mean time, the island building continues and they grow their economy faster then ours. They continue to build their military, including their navy.

    In the longer term, this is a race we are destined to lose. They have 4x the high IQ population. Our nation is growing, but by importing two digit IQ immigrants.

    One day, in a few decades, they will have a navy to rival ours, and we would stop our poking. I think it is short sighted to focus on these short term displays that do nothing in the long run.

    • 回复: @Karl
  48. Ron Unz 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    That means that this is an international economic issue. China is attempting to establish a chokehold on waters through which a vast amount of international commerce travels. Viewed internationally, this should not be allowed.

    Well, I haven’t followed this issue in great detail, but isn’t this MSM “spin” on the issue somewhat ridiculous?

    I don’t doubt that a vast amount of international commerce moves through the waters in question, but isn’t almost all of that shipping going either to or from China? Just look at the map, and consider that Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines conduct small amounts of such trade compared to giant China.

    Assuming this is correct, isn’t the real dispute over whether China should have a “chokehold” over its own international trade waters or whether that control should be in American hands? Is it such a mystery why China prefers the former situation?

    Would America like the waters off our Eastern Seaboard to be under the control of a potentially hostile foreign power?

    • 同意: Stephen R. Diamond
  49. annamaria 说:
    @Jeff77450

    Did not we have already a very Christian president that heard God’s voices and loved spreading Christian values around the globe? (The “turn of the other chick” was resolutely excluded from the set of his Christian values). And what a great result the world has got hanks to this very Christian prez: millions of humans beings were bombed (including babies and pregnant women), several previously functioning states have been turned to anarchy (with the most vicious fundamentalists left unleashed). The US-serviced depleted uranium in Iraq continues generating birth defects; a multitude of families have been destroyed in the Middle East and found themselves in a war zone of their previously peaceful countries (see the wave of humanity washing up the shores of EU). In the US, the youngsters have been robbed by the elders to the tune of 6 trillion dollars (the joy of war profiteers of all kinds!) And while there are no moneys for the universal healthcare and college education in the US, the distant Ukraine, Israel, and the so-called “moderate” jihadis have never been left without very expensive military and financial help.
    Going back to the Christian values, do you think that the deformed children of the Middle East, which are the victims of the “non-appeasing” US policies in Iraq, Libya and Syria (courtesy the military-industial-complex), should be brought to the US for treatment and rehabilitation? Cannot wait to hear your Christian response.

    • 回复: @Ace
  50. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    ” (What country has the remotest possibility of invading America?) ”

    Ha ha, good ol’ Fred. The answer to that question is “the country Fred lives in now.”

  51. @Ron Unz

    That’s precisely the danger of actual MSM spin. It conflates actual issues of national interest with situations like Syria, Ukraine, etc. where we have no business.

    Japan depends on oil imported through these straits. Her commerce with Europe depends on them. That’s just one example. Much of the clothing on our backs comes out of Vietnam, Cambodia etc. Indonesia and Malaysia are major suppliers of oil to the world. We may not like it but we are caught up in an international trading system that has been growing for a long time. Free passage of goods and people are the cornerstone of this system.

    What China is doing in creating artificial islands and declaring them sovereign territory is as far as I know unprecedented. China is attempting to create “Facts on the Ground,” that are not natural Chinese territory.

    “Would America like the waters off our Eastern Seaboard to be under the control of a potentially hostile foreign power?” In fact that has been the case since the beginning of the republic. Bermuda remains British; both the Netherlands and France have possessions not far from our shores. Many former colonies are right off our Eastern Seaboard. When we first became independent, all of the offshore islands were in foreign hands. So yes it’s possible to endure not controlling every bit of land at your periphery. A better example would be our old control of the Panama Canal. We only used this man-made chokehold in times of war, and we built it on existing land and were granted permission by an existing government.

    What I mean to say is that there are some issues that matter to everyone. There aren’t many. Freedom of the seas is one of them. China’s artificially creating territoriality in the middle of a major sea lane should be a matter for all the worlds trading powers, not just us. It’s a pity that our discourse should have been polluted by the Neocons and Interventionists to this level, but there are some things that require attention.

  52. annamaria 说:
    @another fred

    Why the US must risk the treasure and the US citizenry must risk the limb for the benefit of Israel? Don’t Israelis have a superior health care system and a better social protection, and yet they are milking the US out (via the mighty Israel-first AIPAC) of billions of dollars annually.

  53. @Randal

    To reuse the quote from Paul Craig Roberts, if the US got into a war with China, “Americans would go into Walmart and think they’re at Neiman Marcus.”

    @Randal Exactly the proper response by China. Send a battalion of soldiers to Syria, or a squadron of J-7s or whatever. With TWO UNSC members supporting Syria, it becomes even more difficult for the US to continue to illegally interfere in that Country. And with two vetoes to any UNSC proposal by the UK, France, and the USA… the PR that “only Russia stands in the way” is a ludicrous one.

  54. annamaria 说:
    @Alec Leamas

    At least, “China messing about in African affairs” by developing the trade & production connections. This is not against the international laws.

  55. @Vendetta

    It is non-negotiable. That is our history. Seldom does anyone thank our country for this, but it is part of the modern world they all take for granted.

    People have a hard time understanding that Americans have always been willing to die for certain things that other races and cultures barely even understand.

    This has been a fact since the USS Constitution fought kidnappers, extorters and pirates two hundred years ago so that commerce could go on unimpeded and free from the extra cost of payoffs.

    有些事永远不会改变。

    This has nothing to do with actual islands, BTW. I don’t care who owns them, as long as the open seas are kept open and free from imperial claims based on fake, man-made islands capitalized by our insane foreign trade.

  56. @another fred

    Have you ever heard of the Barbary Coast?

    The US has been at this for a long time.

    I don’t have the time or the inclination to prove to everyone on the internet that I am a history or politics geek, because I am not one. I have a rather mediocre education but I try to learn more (including here from people like you.)

    • 回复: @Drapetomaniac
  57. rod1963 说:
    @Alec Leamas

    So is that a reason why we need to go to war with China and Russia?

    We’re broke dude, flat out broke and running on banker bullshit to keep the stock market from imploding. All the butch types don’t get it. We’ve off-shored almost all our industrial base to Asia. Our military is exhausted and broken from a stupid 14 year war in the ME that accomplished nothing except to prove the U.S. is exceptionally stupid as a super power to the point of criminal idiocy.

    Look we’re the ones who destabilized the entire Middle-East and caused the mass immigration to Europe. Not Russia, not China. WE DID!!!!

    We turned Libya and Syria into wrecked states, same with Iraq and Yemen. To the Russians and Chinese we look like mindless gangsters and lunatics on a rampage.

    Our political and military leaders have more in common with a certain little man with a funny mustache and his claque than anyone else at the moment.

    Fight a war with China over what? The Sudan oil fields or those artificial islands? Sheer insanity. Almost as bad trying to start WWIII with Russia over Syria, we were saved by a Congress and public that balked on that one.

    One other thing, our country is totally dependent on China for all our high tech gear, clothes, medicine – yes all the raw materials for our people now are made in China(we just turn them into pills).

    Screw with China and in a few weeks all store shelves will be empty, pharmacies shut down and medicine rationed in hospitals.

    • 同意: Realist
  58. geokat62 说:
    @another fred

    What follows is my 意见.

    Fred, in another post you wrote:

    我没有建议,没有解决方案,只是观察。

    But in this post you write:

    You did not ask, but I think 我们应该 focus almost all of our efforts towards avoiding a full nuclear exchange with another major power…

    我们应该 privately discuss with the Russians and Chinese that we will not consider a launch by one of the smaller powers (and future smaller powers) as a reason to launch.

    Seems to me like you’re making recommendations, no?

    • 回复: @another fred
  59. @Ron Unz

    So let’s just let China, with all those dollars we give it, build what it calls sovereign land in the middle of international waters, so it can go on to dominate an entire region of the Earth.

    Last I checked, anybody is free to sail within the commonly-accepted limits off our coasts — and they do.

    We haven’t been building artificial islands in the Gulf of Mexico or the Mediterranian or the Black Sea or the Indian Ocean just so we can claim ownership of those sea lanes.

    But I know Ron is a super genius who knows more than I do about virtually anything of significance, so I am sure I sound like an idiot now. Thanks for the privilege anyway.

  60. L.K 说:

    Very good article by Mr.Reed.
    Some of the comments though, are mind boggling and demonstrate clearly american ignorance, arrogance and hubris.
    I guess that is why Paul Craig Roberts talks about “dumb sh*t americans” in his articles.

    Look at what this Jeff77450 writes, for example:
    ‘That said, the take-away lesson from WWII is supposed to be that appeasement of a “bully” nation in the beginning produces a worse end-result than dealing with it decisively when the aggression first starts.’

    Your country IS THE GLOBAL BULLY Jeff, in fact it has been one for over a 100 years and became the one and only global bully since the fall of the Soviet Empire.

    Highly decorated U.S Marine Corps major general Smedley D. Butler, “The Fighting Quaker”, wrote in his 1935 book ‘War Is a Racket’:

    I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. 回想起来,我可能已经给了 Al Capone 一些提示。 他能做的最好的事情就是在三个地区操作他的球拍。 我在三大洲经营设立的区域办事处外,我们在美国也开设了办事处,以便我们为当地客户提供更多的支持。“

    Since then, notice this was BEFORE WWII, things only became a lot worse.
    The US is an Empire, with over 800 military bases all over the world and a hegemonic doctrine of full spectrum dominance.

    But pick a fight with Modern China or Russia in their near abroad and you people will get the ass whooping of a life time.
    毫无疑问。

    • 同意: Orville H. Larson
    • 回复: @Stan D Mute
    , @Ace
  61. @Thomas O. Meehan

    you should at the very least make sure the “facts” you put forth to support your comment is true before you present it 🙁

    • 回复: @Thomas O. Meehan
  62. Ron Unz 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    Well, as I said, I haven’t paid a great deal of attention to the issue, but I found Peter Lee’s detailed column from a few months back pretty persuasive:

    https://www.unz.com/plee/its-official-america-has-a-china-containment-policy-2/

    Also, I’d hardly say that Indonesia or Malaysia are “major” oil exporters, since neither rank in the top 20, and their total exports are just a tiny fraction of China’s total imports, sailing through exactly those waters. Similarly, neither Vietnam or the Philippines exports anything important to the U.S., except maybe immigrant nurses. I don’t think any of Japan’s shipping goes through the area claimed by China, and I wouldn’t be surprised if 80-90% of all the trade that does is with China.

    Anyway, for the last couple of decades, America has constantly been attacking other countries or overthrowing their governments, usually for no good reason, thereby killing millions of people and throwing parts of the world into total chaos; meanwhile China tends to mind its own business. The Chinese leaders would have to be total fools to allow America to secure a chokehold over their own vital sealanes.

    It’s important for people to look past MSM propaganda at the objective facts and recognize that these days America is responsible for an enormous fraction of all the aggressive military actions everywhere in the world, and that countries such as Russia and China, which exist outside of our MSM control, recognize this. When the U.S. spends years going around and attacking everyone in a crazy way, sensible people have to take precautions.

    Or perhaps I should just believe whatever the MSM spouts and accept that we also have an epidemic of innocent black teens being lynched by “racist” white cops…

  63. bossel 说:

    isn’t almost all of that shipping going either to or from China?

    I suppose there is a lot of it going to & from S Korea & Japan as well, both US allies.

    whether China should have a “chokehold” over its own international trade waters or whether that control should be in American hands?

    Does the US have that chokehold? I doubt that the Philippines, Vietnam et al. would be happy with that, either.

    The PRC’s reaction to the US provocation (yes, it was a provocation, but legal, anyway) makes it pretty clear that they actually want to have such a chokehold. Then it’s no wonder that the other claimants for South China Sea territory are looking for US support.

    The US doesn’t really need to have a chokehold in the South China Sea, anyway. They have enough naval capabilities to stop any sea trade with China in the Indian Ocean, far from the reach of Chinese air power. & the PLAN wouldn’t be able to do much against it.

    • 回复: @annamaria
  64. Sean 说:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/308839/

    According to Mearsheimer, America and China’s internal politics are nothing to do with the way they act. States are just billiard balls that bounce off each other in predictable ways irrespective of the colour of their politics. China has already said it will invade Taiwan if it declares independence, and when the US used the diplomatic code for nuking “incalculable consequences” the Chinese made a thinly veiled nuclear threat against the US mainland. In 1994 Mearsheimer predicted if Ukraine was without nuclear weapons it would be attacked by Russia. Ukraine agreed to renounce nukes for worthless western so called security guarantees and the inevitable consequences followed. He will be proved right about China too.

    • 回复: @annamaria
  65. geokat62 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Anyway, for the last couple of decades, America has constantly been attacking other countries or overthrowing their governments, usually for no good reason,...

    When the U.S. spends years going around and attacking everyone in a crazy way

    Ron, I’m not well acquainted with your political views, but these two quotes seem to suggest that you believe US foreign policy is not driven by any particular ideology.

    Are you suggesting that in a post 9/11 world, US foreign policy is not driven by the neoconservative ideology, whose cornerstone is that the US should remain the world’s sole superpower or hegemon, and that the neocons are promoting this policy because it happens to have the salutary byproduct of enhancing the security of Israel?

    If things are viewed in this light, is it fair to describe US foreign policy as “irrational” or “crazy,” giving the impression that benefits aren’t being derived by certain parties?

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  66. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @unpc downunder

    I am in West Virginia. Norfolk is not.

  67. rod1963 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    Let the Chinese have their artificial Islands and trade routes which they depend on for their economic prosperity.

    If they get uppity we slap tariffs on their junk and start producing goods state side. That will hit them hard and fast in the family jewels. And we keep out of territory we have no business in. Especially with a navy as decrepit as ours.

    IMO there are far too many guys out there who still think it’s 1950 and our military is top shelf, it’s not despite what FoxNews says. It’s tiny and mostly broken. Money that should have went for refit and spares got sucked up into worthless programs like the F-22, F-35, the new super carriers, etc. Basically pork for contractors. Trillions wasted.

    The Marine Corps is a shadow of itself, the Army, is well a victim of excessive downsizing and mismanagement that has caused it to lose it’s most experience junior officers with combat experience. And because of Iraq it is in need of a major equipment overhaul for which there is no money. Our conventional ground units are a wreck. The command structure is full of Wal-Mart type yes men who would sell out their first born for an additional star.

    We don’t need war. we really don’t.

  68. @Randal

    “It’s probably a good lesson in some circumstances, but the problem from my perspective is that as far as I can see the bully nation today is the US, in the Middle East, in Ukraine and in the seas around China.”

    No shit. Russia, China, Iran et al. aren’t warmongering/intervening around the world. The U.S. and Israel are.

    • 回复: @denk
    , @Realist
  69. Ron Unz 说:
    @geokat62

    Ron, I’m not well acquainted with your political views, but these two quotes seem to suggest that you believe US foreign policy is not driven by any particular ideology.

    Are you suggesting that in a post 9/11 world, US foreign policy is not driven by the neoconservative ideology…

    Well, within just a few weeks of 9/11 it became pretty obvious to me that the Neocons had used the confusion to seize control of the U.S. government, control that they have maintained to the present day, though somewhat diminished under Obama.

    However, the Neocons are crazy, so when crazy people control a government, it’s hardly surprising they do crazy things.

    And while it’s certainly true that our Mid-East policies are completely Israel-oriented, and the one might argue that was true to some extent regarding Ukraine (because of Russia), I just can’t see how picking a fight with China off her own coast has much to do with Israel. Basically, crazy people tend to do crazy things.

    I’m busy with my own work and anyway very rarely write on foreign policy issues, but here’s an article of mine from a few years ago on some related matters:

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-life-and-legacy-of-lt-gen-william-odom/

  70. annamaria 说:
    @bossel

    “I doubt that the Philippines, Vietnam et al. would be happy with that…”

    Are the Philippines, Vietnam et al. part of the US? Are Baltic states and Ukraine part of the US? Is Syria one of the American states? Have you noticed the neglect of American interests in the instances of crumbling infrastructure, joblessness (disappearance of the middle class), and the lack of health care for the US citizens at large? There are at least 800 permanent US “provocations” around the globe. If the US want to protect both the democracy and international law, the “legal provocations” against the plutocracy-paid US Congress and the plutocracy-paid Citizens United “arrangement” could be a good start. For now, the US is on the kissing terms with the royal Saudis (remember 9/11?) and ungrateful Israel (of “never again” fame, Palestinian children by damned)

  71. denk 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    *People have a hard time understanding that Americans have always been willing to die for certain things that other races and cultures barely even understand.*

    ROFL
    kid, u ought to get out of the house more often and smell the roses !

    unitedsnake the world cop ?
    *这是最聪明的保护球拍,因为男人说服女人他们需要男人来保护他们,因为如果所有的男人一夜之间都消失了,有多少女人会害怕上街?*

    http://williamblum.org/chapters/rogue-state/rogue-state-introduction

  72. annamaria 说:
    @Sean

    “..if Ukraine was without nuclear weapons it would be attacked by Russia… and the inevitable consequences followed.”
    Considering the wealth of information on the events that had led to the coup d’etat in Kiev and then to the civil war in Eastern Ukraine (including a thorough analysis of the ongoing RF/US conflict in Ukraine by the readers on this site), your post is simply dishonest.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  73. anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    Regarding all this chatter about US aggressiveness being due to the ‘neocons’ being in charge of our foreign policy or the US being Israel’s water boy, in fact the US policy of aggression and war dates back 117 years to the Spanish-American war where it seized on the opportunity to wrest places such as the Philippines and Cuba away from the Spanish. There were no ‘neocons’ or state of Israel back then. The trajectory of US policy since then has been one of opportunistically moving in on weakened prey, getting a bloody nose here and there through miscalculation. There’s nothing new about this, just that the US capability has grown and along with it it’s boldness in so doing.

    • 回复: @Chris Mallory
  74. @Ron Unz

    I hope that your references to MSM propaganda in our discussion aren’t directed to me personally. I have been associated with a realist, anti-interventionist orientation for a long time. As evidence I can cite a piece I wrote for this journal in 2014 entitled, “Obama Organizes the Neighborhood.” It takes thePresident to task for his liberal internationalist policy re:” ISIS.

    The Lee piece you cite is long and has many interesting points. At root it attacks a US containment policy towards the PRC. According to him, the most aggressive expression of this policy is Hilary Clinton’s. Let’s agree right now that she is a dangerous nitwit leading other nitwits (and us!) into harms way. She exemplifies a dangerous breed of armchair warriors of both right and left.

    Let’s consider the containment part of this equation. The nations situated around China are already starting to collude in such a manner in their own interest. Asia at large is becoming an economic colossus, not just China. It’s not warmongering to seek friends and interests in the non-Chinese portion of Asia. China should be contained when she over-extends her legitimate reach. And like our containment of the USSR, this does not require war.

    China claims control of waters extending right up to the Philippine coast. The South China Sea areas she claims are far south of her actual sea coast as well. As mentioned in Lee’s article, other nations have equally preposterous territorial South China Sea claims. China is the only one in any position or inclination to enforce them.

    We and the Brits before us consistently strove to maintain a freedom of the seas foreign policy for over two Hundred Years. If this cannot be kept up..so be it. But without that system, a new and much more contentious system will take its place with wars over undersea mineral rights all but guaranteed.

    • 回复: @denk
    , @denk
    , @Bill Jones
  75. @Randal

    I actually wish the Chinese had joined the Russians in Syria, would have made it way more harder for the Gulf Arabs and Turks to further entangle Uncle Sam into that mess. I am all for the Chinese sending scores of Islamists to meet their 72 virgins or raisins or whatever.

  76. geokat62 说:

    However, the Neocons are crazy, so when crazy people control a government, it’s hardly surprising they do crazy things.

    I couldn’t disagree more. I believe they have clear objectives (chief among them is enhancing the security of the state of Israel) and they are prepared to see America send its last soldier and spend its last dollar to achieve them.

    That said, I’d say the neocons are indeed crazy, “crazy like a fox.”

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  77. @Vendetta

    The US can also play that game, and is in a much better position to hurt China because they depend far more on the US and the West for their economy than vice versa.

  78. @Astuteobservor II

    astuteobserver. The only error I can see is that Ron is right about Indonesian and Malaysian oil exports. They used to be a bigger factor, hence the Japanese interest in capturing them.

    If you are going to accuse other people of not having the “facts,” you should point out said facts.

    • 回复: @Vendetta
  79. denk 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    *This has been a fact since the USS Constitution fought kidnappers, extorters and pirates two hundred years ago so that commerce could go on unimpeded and free from the extra cost of payoffs. *

    did u say highsea pirates ?

    The explicit purpose of the mining operations, as NSC staffer Oliver North and his NSC colleague, Constantine Menges, report to NSC director McFarlane in a top-secret March 2, 1984, memorandum entitled “Special Activities in Nicaragua,” is “在出口高峰期严重扰乱对尼加拉瓜贸易至关重要的航运流动。” In order to “advance our overall goal of applying stringent economic pressure” and to “further impair the already critical fuel capacity in Nicaragua” they recommend an even more dramatic operation — to sink an oil tanker in a Nicaraguan harbor. “It is entirely likely that once a ship has been sunk, no insurers will cover ships calling in Nicaraguan ports,” states the memorandum, effectively ending Nicaragua’s access to Western petroleum. McFarlane authorizes the plan and briefs Reagan on March 5. But the operation never comes to fruition, perhaps because the CIA’s mining of Nicaragua’s harbors explodes into an international scandal three weeks later.

    http://www.iraqtimeline.com/1984.html

    更新
    criminal still at large, currently masquerading as fon enforcer in scs.

  80. Ron Unz 说:
    @geokat62

    However, the Neocons are crazy, so when crazy people control a government, it’s hardly surprising they do crazy things.

    I couldn’t disagree more. I believe they have clear objectives (chief among them is enhancing the security of the state of Israel) and they are prepared to see America send its last soldier and spend its last dollar to achieve them.

    But what does the South China Sea have to do with Israel?

    • 回复: @geokat62
  81. athEIst 说:

    What country has the remotest possibility of invading America? .
    If this is a serious question, the answer is Mexico. It has been successfully invading America for at least 50 years.

  82. @geokat62

    Yes, I have recommendations about the larger scale, about survival, but not about details of which side we pick in the general shitstorm around us.

    I have referenced in other posts about “personal recommendations”, those are about a piece of land with good flowing water and good neighbors, but that is another topic.

  83. @rod1963

    I must have written very poorly for you to believe that I want a war.

  84. geokat62 说:
    @Ron Unz

    But what does the South China Sea have to do with Israel?

    Nothing. My remarks simply pertained to the primary driver of US foreign policy in a post-911 era. Nothing more, nothing less.

    为题外话道歉。

    Back to regularly scheduled programming.

  85. @Buzz Mohawk

    Right, we need to keep taxing blue collar whites so we can keep the sea lanes open so we can ship those same white’s jobs overseas and so we can import cheap Chinese crap and put even more of those same whites out of business. After the economy gets bad enough, we can induct those white’s sons into the military, when they have no other options, so they can go fight to keep those sea lanes open.

    Sounds like the only ones winning when we keep those sea lanes open are the multi national corporations. Supporting policing the world is a sucker’s bet if you aren’t the CEO of a multi national corporation or a politician in their pocket.

    • 回复: @Vendetta
    , @TomSchmidt
  86. @rod1963

    The army hasn’t been downsized enough. We need to replace most of the army with a citizen’s militia forbidden from ever being deployed outside the borders of the continental United States.

    • 同意: Stephen R. Diamond
  87. @annamaria

    “3. What if China (and Russia) nuke DC back?”

    Much of the world would probably breathe a sigh of relief. . . .

  88. @anonymous

    We didn’t have NeoCons back when we went to war with Spain, but that was the beginning of the progressive movement, and NeoCons are just progressives who love war. They are like the first idiot Roosevelt cousin to hold the office of president in that way. If we had not taken those Pacific holdings of Spain there is a very good chance we would have been attacked by Japan.

  89. denk 说:
    @Orville H. Larson

    unitedsnake 300, china 0

    no contest !
    http://williamblum.org/intervention-map
    [工作正在进行中]

    • 回复: @Drapetomaniac
  90. Nimitz sailor here. Carrier rat. Flight decks, swimming pools. Nothing more tender than a carrier group. Can’t get them to sea anyway because the girls with children and no husbands won’t go to sea anyway, probably a good thing, thinking it over for a minute. 60 minutes showed a single B1 bomber refueling twice in a 1500 mile trip to bomb a building when they could have traveled 150 miles from the Med-Coast off a carrier to drop the same damned bomb. We don’t send carriers to sea anymore, might as well chop them up.

    Oh, sorry, that would keep single mothers from having a job aboard a ship at pier. Pathetic. We’re doomed, enjoy the decline.

  91. @Buzz Mohawk

    Ah yes, the Barbary Pirates.

    A great beginning for the elite to pick the pockets of the public and make it appear to be honorable.

    The traders should have hired their own protection or paid the pirates for passage, it was no one else’s business.

    But no, the elites got their protection paid for by the public (and they are still picking pockets after all these years) and the clueless dupes got to beat their chests and feel the burn of pride while someone relieved them of their hard-earned money.

    As always, good work dupes.

    • 回复: @TomSchmidt
  92. @denk

    Nice map, thanks.

    It would be a bit more poignant if the bomb bursts were replaced with skulls and crossbones.

    • 回复: @denk
  93. Ron Unz 说:

    Since I’ve somehow let myself get drawn into this thread, I might as well as well inject another possible issue for understanding China’s behavior…

    Although I haven’t recently followed the question, I still think it’s pretty likely that the pro-US side deliberately shot down that Malaysian Airliner in Ukraine last year as a provocation. A few months earlier, another Malaysian flight filled with Chinese had mysteriously disappeared in the South China Sea, and some commenter here once had suggested that “we” had picked a Malaysian flight for the Ukraine shootdown just to teach the Malaysians to stop complaining so much about the disappearance of their previous plane.

    Back a couple of months ago, I happened to raise this matter with a smart, very well-connected friend of mine, who has a good knowledge of China. I said that the whole thing seemed pretty odd. Given all of America’s massive military presence in the South China Sea surely we’d know exactly what had happened to MH-370 and would have released the info unless e.g. we’d accidentally shot it down ourselves. But surely the Chinese military had reasonably good surveillance as well, and if we’d killed all those Chinese passengers in China’s own back yard, they could release the information to embarrass us.

    However, he pointed out that China couldn’t release such information since the popular outrage would probably lead to war, and China didn’t want war. The reaction would certainly be far greater than when America had deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and killed those Chinese diplomats a couple of decades ago, which our worthless MSM totally covered-up. Frankly, this seems like the only plausible scenario explaining why neither America nor China has revealed what happened to that airliner in such a heavily monitored part of the world.

    So maybe one of the reasons China is now trying to claim most of the South China Sea is that they don’t want America to shoot down any more civilian airliners flying there filled with their citizens.

    In understanding today’s world, I think one crucial thing to bear in mind is that China (and Russia) behave like perfectly normal countries, while America is run by crazy people.

  94. Realist 说:
    @Ron Unz

    “Since I’ve somehow let myself get drawn into this thread, I might as well as well inject another possible issue for understanding China’s behavior”

    As well we all should. It is an extremely important issue,

    “In understanding today’s world, I think one crucial thing to bear in mind is that China (and Russia) behave like perfectly normal countries, while America is run by crazy people.”

    McCain and Graham being great examples.

  95. Rich 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I can’t agree that “Americans have always been wiling to die…” in foreign wars. I think the Plutocrats who run the US have been willing to send poorer Americans to die for them and their wallets for a very long time, though. As education standards increased in the US, people began to protest wars,Vietnam for instance, and refused to fight for the Plutocracy. Although I enlisted in the US Army as a foolish teenager, I would never want one of my children or my nieces or nephews or anyone I care about, to die so the rich can keep getting richer, and I think most Americans would agree with me.

  96. @Ron Unz

    “In understanding today’s world, I think one crucial thing to bear in mind is that China (and Russia) behave like perfectly normal countries, while America is run by crazy people.”

    The rest of the world will inevitably come to realize that. . . .

    • 回复: @Intelligent Dasein
  97. Vendetta 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    I wonder which “existing government” you’re referring to that gave us permission to build the canal? Colombia’s didn’t…

    Do you mean the Panamanian government? “The existing government” is an interesting way of describing it, being that it didn’t exist at all before America intervened there.

    • 回复: @Thomas O. Meehan
  98. Vendetta 说:
    @Chris Mallory

    The Milo Minderbinder argument for freedom of navigation.

  99. @Peter Schaeffer

    China might never admit it, but decades of US naval hegemony in the Pacific have been a huge boon to her economically. Arguably, it’s been the greatest military achievement of the US since World War II, truly keeping the peace on the seas and allowing natural enemies like Japan, China, and the rest to trade with each other and get richer. But what have we gotten out of it? Cheap imports and a hollowed out middle class.

    Maybe it’s time to go. China’s neighbors don’t need us to contain China. They can do it themselves. An alliance of Japan, Australia, Singapore, India, The Philippines, Indonesia, maybe – plenty of GDP, tech, and manpower there. They’d probably all be a bit worse off with an East Asian cold war, as a lot of industry will shift from nice gadgets and cars to military hardware, but that’s there loss, not ours.

  100. Vendetta 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Chinese domination of its immediate surroundings is an inevitable consequence of it building an economy and in due time a military on par with that of America’s.

    Men with the same foolish thoughts as you in the British and German admiralties helped start World War I.

    These islands are not worth the life of a single American serviceman. Taiwan is not worth the life of a single American serviceman. The whole South China Sea is not worth the life of a single American serviceman. None of these are vital interests.

    Today the South China Sea, tomorrow the Caribbean? Neither Russia nor China have a fleet capable of challenging ours outside their home waters. The Chinese can’t shut us out of the Pacific, and the Russians can’t shut us out of the Atlantic. There is no mortal threat to our interests.

  101. Vendetta 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    Which of these options costs the least:
    1) Building and maintaining armed forces in the region sufficiently massive enough to contain China, the world’s second or third greatest military power.
    2) Fighting a war against China, the world’s second or third greatest military power.
    3) Rerouting the shipping lanes to go around the South China Sea.

    You’ve supplied the answer to your own dilemma. If China at some point in the future actually declares the South China Sea off limits to foreign shipping (which I strongly doubt they are going to do), sail around it and hit them with economic sanctions.

  102. denk 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    *China should be contained when she over-extends her legitimate reach. And like our containment of the USSR, this does not require war.
    ................................
    We and the Brits before us consistently strove to maintain a freedom of the seas foreign policy for over two Hundred Years.*

    one of these two needs to be QUARANTINED pronto.
    it should be a no brainer.

    http://www.marctomarket.com/2013/12/great-graphic-rise-of-china-as-trade.html

    http://www.us-uk-interventions.org/index_frames.html

  103. 5371 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Why didn’t you enter WW1 on the side of the Central Powers, then?

  104. @Ron Unz

    if this theory has even one ounce of truth to it, humanity was saved from a nuclear war by the chinese govt.

    well, time for me to enjoy my life to the fullest. cause you never know when nukes would start detonating across the world due to the crazies we have in our govt.

  105. Randal 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    Japan depends on oil imported through these straits. Her commerce with Europe depends on them.

    Except that the alternative of the Lombok Strait rather than Malacca is there. It’s not preferred except for ships too big for Malacca, because it involves extra mileage, but that’s just profit margin and costs, not impossibility.

    And of course China has given no indication anyway of wanting to block trade through these routes anyway – just US and other military traffic, fishing etc.

    In fact that has been the case since the beginning of the republic. Bermuda remains British; both the Netherlands and France have possessions not far from our shores. Many former colonies are right off our Eastern Seaboard.

    And the US made it quite clear in the C19th that these islands remained in European control at their sufferance, and indeed went to war with Spain in 1898 over Cuba.

    A better example would be our old control of the Panama Canal. We only used this man-made chokehold in times of war, and we built it on existing land and were granted permission by an existing government.

    Was just recently reading a review article about (iirc) a new book about those events, but I can’t remember where it was. Here’s what Wikipedia says about that, for simplicity:

    Along the way, the state of Panama was created through its separation from Colombia in 1903, due to a US backed revolt, so the US could then get control of the Canal project area.=
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Panama_Canal

    As for “only used this man-made chokehold in times of war”, when are you expecting the Chinese to close off the South China Sea to trade vessels passing through?

  106. Macilrae 说:
    @Ron Unz

    I have to say I think both theories are pretty far fetched. If MA370 was shot down by covert US government action, the aircraft would have crashed into the hugely populated waters of the South China Sea – crowded with small craft – and even if it had somehow descended unobserved, the debris from a shoot-down would surely have quickly been found floating in those particular waters. If, however, this theory is extended to explain that the aircraft was somehow diverted onto the currently believed course, down over the Indian Ocean, with no opportunity for sending a distress call (perhaps CIA suicide agents on board?), that still sounds more than slightly implausible.

    I also greatly doubt that the Chinese government would suppress publication of such a hostile action because “it would probably lead to war” – on the contrary I think the Chinese would take full political and moral advantage of such an event to emphasize to the world just what the US government was capable of doing: yielding a huge propaganda victory. Trust them to be able to manage the local fallout through their own ‘worthless MSM’.

    While I agree that the present US government would be perfectly capable of shooting down a passenger aircraft, if it held sufficient political gain, I can’t see why on earth they’d do that just “to teach the Malaysians to stop complaining so much” : Malaysia’s complaining is hardly a big inconvenience.

    An unbiased version of the fate of MA17 has not and may never come to light but the evidence increasingly seems to point to the Ukrainian government forces and either an accidental (incompetent) action or a deliberate false flag operation.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  107. annamaria 说:
    @Ron Unz

    “…America is run by crazy people.”

    America is run by perfect reptiloids that live a breath for power (and money) only. These narcissists and psychopaths are clinically deformed because of their deficiency of empathy. The obvious “craziness” of current imperial policies reflects a faulty reasoning which is devoid of normal emotional component. People like Cheney, Douglas Feith, and Condi Rice are a grave danger to humanity because they are not exactly humans but actually the sub-humans.
    The reptiloids are not for individual responsibility, not at all! They are for the unrestricted and state-protected parasitism of reptiloids on the backs of the “biomass” (a definition of non-oligarchs by the Ukrainian oligarch Timoschenko). Hence the wars.
    Our only salvation is transparency: the exposure of the deals, financial disclosures, harassment of the reptiloids’ families re their bloody wealth and influence. The macabre images of war must be connected to specific families profiting on the mayhem.

  108. Henry 说:

    (What country has the remotest possibility of invading America?)

    I don’t know … Mexico? Oh, almost forgot. Today as long as the masses of another country invade unarmed the west collapses in front of them.

    • 回复: @Ace
  109. Ron Unz 说:
    @Macilrae

    I have to say I think both theories are pretty far fetched.

    Well, I certainly can’t be sure, but the scenario seems reasonably plausible.

    (1) For unknown reasons, MH-370 alters its course in the South China Sea and goes somewhere the Americans don’t like, so they shoot it down. This is exactly what happened with the famous KAL-007 shootdown by the Soviets in the 1980s.

    (2) In the case of KAL-007, the shootdown was over Soviet territory, while with MH-370 it happened in international waters. The Chinese reasonably fear that releasing the true facts would cause their enraged masses to rise up and demand harsh retaliatory measures, possibly leading to war. Keep in mind that the Chinese government is much more subject to popular pressure and has less total control over its own MSM than does the American government:

    https://www.unz.com/article/chinese-melamine-and-american-vioxx-a-comparison/

    (3) Some months later, the post-coup Ukrainian government and the American Deep State plan a false-flag shootdown of a civilian jetliner to blame on the Russians. In picking a target, they’d probably avoid the airlines of Germany, France, Saudi, Qatar, etc. Malaysia is one of the remaining possibilities, and since the Malaysians are already complaining about their previous “disappeared” jet, they decide to teach them to shutup.

    (4) I’d also mention that a few months ago, worldwide media organizations suddenly got their hands on hard evidence that the leader of Malaysia had diverted many hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds into his personal bank account, which has led to mass unrest and may topple him. Presumably, another NSA-derived “shut-up” warning.

    Frankly, I’ve never paid any attention to the MH-370 case, and hadn’t considered the reasons for China’s silence until they were pointed out by my very well-connected friend.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
    , @LondonBob
    , @Sam J.
  110. @unit472

    I think the point is that the carriers aren’t going to be any use against China. It will possibly be handy to have them for use against an enemy which can’t send your carriers to the bottom with a swarm of cruise missiles and rockets.

  111. Avery 说:
    @Ron Unz

    It is quite plausible that the Chinese government would hush up the shootdown of MH-370 by US whether done deliberately or accidentally: to avoid a major war that could cost the lives of 10s of 1000s of Chinese, at least. So the calculus is cold, but rational.
    The only question is why would US shoot down a passenger airline carrying mostly Chinese nationals deliberately.
    US leaders are psychopaths, but are they that crazy?
    How could they be sure China would not act crazy too ?
    Surely they realize in a major war in this day and age, nobody in US is safe hiding behind the vast oceans.

    Nevertheless, the reason the scenario is plausible, is because something similar happened some years ago: the sinking of Russian submarine Kursk.
    All the circumstantial evidence pointed to its sinking to be due to an external cause(s), and not the purported internal explosion.
    There was one picture that somehow became public of the Kursk hull with a neat, round hole on its side, about the diameter of a torpedo with the steel bent inwards.

    The story was that an American submarine which was protecting another American submarine shadowing Kursk during the Russian naval war games in Barents sea, mistakenly thought Kursk was about to open fire on the other American sub, and it fired first.

    Russian government was reportedly offered and accepted $10 billion from US to hush up the real reason. Neither side was interested in a major war.
    A loss of a submarine is a lot cheaper than 10s of 1000s that would die in a dust up between US and Russia. And of course there is always the possibility that a mini-war could accidentally spin out of control and end up with nukes flying everywhere.

    Yes, a lot of “reportedlys”, but the official explanations did not make sense.
    And the fact that the Russian fleet admiral abruptly left his flag ship and flew to Moscow right after the sinking, instead of staying in the area on Barents sea, point to something very serious that the admiral had to discuss with Putin personally.

    • 回复: @5371
    , @Ron Unz
  112. @Thomas O. Meehan

    China is, at least, engaging in cheap incremental steps to increase its power in East Asia to the detriment of American power. It’s a no brainer. More power is better than less, at least if there is a USA known for throwing its weight around. But there is little reason for Australia to do anything about it except by making some mildly noisy objections. It’s not going to stop its exports of iron ore and coal to its big Asian customers (of which China is the biggest) and there’s nothing much Australia can sensibly do to prevent China bullying its smaller neighbours.

  113. @Buzz Mohawk

    Last I checked, anybody is free to sail within the commonly-accepted limits off our coasts — and they do.

    Yet, last year when the Iranians sent a destroyer and a ship tender to sail around off our coasts the Faux Conservatives went ballistic. A President McCain would have ordered them sank.

    We haven’t been building artificial islands in the Gulf of Mexico or the Mediterranian or the Black Sea or the Indian Ocean just so we can claim ownership of those sea lanes.

    No, but we have our Coast Guard stopping ships on the high seas to search for drugs or other contraband. Six of one, half a dozen of another.

  114. @Ron Unz

    Ron, I think you still “haven’t paid any attention to the MH370 case”. I find it hard to believe that a “well connected friend” giving you a reason why the Chinese might not disclose what they knew of the fate of MH370 – if they knew – satisfies your usual evidentiary standards in the absence of its fitting in with a lot of uncontested information – which it does not.

    The French manufacturers have apparently confirmed that the wreckage recently found on Réunion Island is from MH370 thereby confirming that the search in the Indian ocean off the Western Australian coast (from memory about 1000k, and also 3000k south of Malaysia) is in the right area.

    That search has been supervised and co-ordinated by retired chief of Australia’s defence staff Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston so the cranky civil aviation and air safety enthusiasts and critics would have been quick to point to anything as different as your hypothesis from the received version which I think is pretty well captured by the Wikipedia entry on MH370 which I have now read for the first time to refresh my memory of something that never seemed politically interesting or mysterious. I’ve never heard the slightest suggestion that MH370 was shot down even in Crikey.com.au and it is hard to see how a few minutes over the South China Sea near the mouth of the Gulf of Thailand brings the US into the picture at all.

    • 回复: @Che Guava
    , @Ron Unz
  115. TomSchmidt 说:

    Glad to reed Fred on military matters. He has more sympathy with the grunts who will die than the political prima donnas who move the chess pieces around the board for promotion. Thanks, Fred.

    • 同意: Orville H. Larson
  116. TomSchmidt 说:
    @Chris Mallory

    Ultimately, the military becomes another form of subsidy from one group to another. Necessary when existential threats are faced, as the Soviets faced from the National Socialists: then everyone is fighting for the brutal dictators in their national government.

    A new birth of freedom is the logic of your comment getting adopted by every “patriot” who continues to contribute blood and treasure to those using the same government machinery he fuels to defraud him.

  117. TomSchmidt 说:
    @Drapetomaniac

    And don’t forget, “millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute.” We did, actually, pay the tribute.

    • 回复: @Bill Jones
  118. Che Guava 说:

    I note that many articles are stating that China is acting in an unprecedented way in building up tidal rocks and reefs.

    They are simply reacting in kind to what Japan has done on Okinotori ‘islands’ (look it up, it is far more comical than any of China’s efforts, and the photos of former Tokyo Governor posing on a concrete ring are strong black humour).

    That is not to forget the same cat’s paw politician’s campaign to get ultranationalists to register their address as Diaoyou, a.k.a. Senkakus. None of them live there (actually, I think one does now, but he seems to be more of a government-subsidised hermit).

    Vietnam’s reclamation activities in the South China Sea pre-date China’s.

    None of the above activities received any disapproval from the USA. Ergo, the opinions of Fred, Peter Lee and others that US policy is all about containment, are clearly correct.

    I believe the US holds that its very strange and artificial islands off California, Los Angeles if I recall correctly, count as territory in terms of EEZ and so on.

  119. @Alec Leamas

    Why, if its concerns are its sphere of influence in Asia, is China messing about in African affairs?

    For the same reason Arabs and Africans are invading Europe. Africa is immensely rich in natural resources and immensely weak in human intellectual capital to extract those resources. “Rich and weak” invites a power to fill the vacuum. Europe is weak in masculinity and that weakness is being filled. Africa is weak in intelligence and again the vacuum is being filled.

  120. Che Guava 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Which still begs the question, what was it doing deliberately being flown for hours on a course that, at best, was at a right-angle to the course to its destination?

    I suspect that the co-pilot pulled the same kind of stunt as that Austrian lunatic, likely with different intentions, the intended suicide-bomb attack on Diego Garcia is not the least likely idea.

    Any other realistic theories? Maybe just a suicide into the ocean, just like the Austrian idiot, only not into a mountain.

    Can see no other plausible theory than those two.

  121. 5371 说:
    @Avery

    You wouldn’t call your subordinate on the carpet after something like that happened under his command, whatever the reason? It must be great to have you as a boss))

    • 回复: @Avery
  122. Ron Unz 说:
    @Avery

    Nevertheless, the reason the scenario is plausible, is because something similar happened some years ago: the sinking of Russian submarine Kursk.

    I’d never heard that fascinating story about the fate of the Kursk. Offhand, it seems fairly plausible…

    This is exactly why I find the comments on my website far more interesting than the articles themselves.

    • 回复: @RobinG
  123. @L.K

    Since then, notice this was BEFORE WWII, things only became a lot worse.
    The US is an Empire, with over 800 military bases all over the world and a hegemonic doctrine of full spectrum dominance.

    But pick a fight with Modern China or Russia in their near abroad and you people will get the ass whooping of a life time.
    毫无疑问。

    You shoulda quit while you were ahead, way ahead. The US is an evil empire rotting within. And our military escapades are distilled proofs of this evil exported. But there is no force on earth than can deliver the much deserved “whooping of a lifetime.” You seriously underestimate the military power of America. One could write encyclopedias detailing the breadth and depth of America’s military might. We look like clowns in Arabia due to our milquetoast Rules of Engagement. Take the dogs off the least and you’d see biblical destruction. Remember what we did to Germany eighty years ago? Even if a conflict went nuclear, have no doubt America could utterly devastate any opposition. Our nukes are more accurate and reliable, by far, than any others. If our only force was submarine, with our Navy and Air Force along with all our hundreds of billions in Black weaponry, we could reduce any foe to rubble making Dresden look like Disney World. Meanwhile life back home in Iowa and Kansas would go on more or less as it always has. Empty Wal-Marts? Don’t count on it. Do you think China the only place with factories? Brazil would love to triple her exports to America. We buy so much from China because it is the cheapest, not because there aren’t a million garment factories in Pakistan.

    No, the problem isn’t that America would get spanked, it is that it wouldn’t. We have 200 Trillion in unfunded liabilities and yet the Chinese keep their life savings here. Our entire nation is a continuous unprotected border yet we face zero risk of invasion except by Indian peasants hoping to clean our toilets. We trash entire countries because we might inconvenience an owl or snail species if we sourced materials at home. We pay an alien race of 40,000,000+ to do nothing because it would be messy to force them to feed themselves or leave. If, as Fred Reed avers, our ships are made of tissue paper – it’s because they can be. The problem is that there is no restraint on America. And so we grow across the planet like cancer while we rot from within.

    • 回复: @Karl
    , @Ron Unz
  124. Ron Unz 说:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Ron, I think you still “haven’t paid any attention to the MH370 case”. I find it hard to believe that a “well connected friend” giving you a reason why the Chinese might not disclose what they knew of the fate of MH-370 – if they knew – satisfies your usual evidentiary standards in the absence of its fitting in with a lot of uncontested information – which it does not.

    Well, I hardly vet my casual, speculative website comments with the care I do the detailed claims I make in my own published articles. And I must reemphasize that I’ve never investigated the MH-370 case and don’t claim any expertise on it.

    However, based on the NYT/WSJ stories, it doesn’t really sound like anyone knows where or why it went down, apparently somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Given the massive U.S. military/surveillance presence in that region of the world, I’d think America probably knows what happened to it, and the total silence seems at least somewhat suspicious.

    Suspicions aren’t certainties. But about 20 years ago, an American 747 flight TWA-800 crashed soon after leaving NYC, and although I’d never paid any attention to the controversy until the couple of years, there does seem to be a great deal of physical and eye-witness evidence that it was hit by a missile, possibly fired accidentally by the local U.S. military. Various highly-credible individuals have told me privately that they find the evidence pretty compelling. So if the shootdown of an American jetliner right off the American coast could be covered up, I’d certainly think the same might happen on the other side of the world.

    My fundamental point is that if (as seems likely) the U.S. has a great deal of evidence about what happened to MH-370 and hasn’t released it, there’s probably a reason for that. Presumably, when the Soviets shot down KAL-007, they would have preferred that the only story in the world media was that the plane had “mysteriously vanished”…

    • 回复: @Buzz Mohawk
    , @denk
    , @Wizard of Oz
  125. @Vendetta

    No matter what the topic, there his always some American original sin to appeal to. And of course there were no people on the isthmus who wanted to be free of Columbia. Curiously, after living under our heel for a long time, Panamanians miss us.

  126. RobinG 说:
    @Ron Unz

    The Kursk collision theory, although still proffered, seems well rebuked.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_submarine_disaster

    While the comments are indeed interesting, often enlightening, there are plenty of weeds. Aside from the accusations about who’s hasbara, much if it is just a waste of time. Maybe they’re CIA etc., sowing confusion and dissipating real activism.

    If you want to speculate about MH370, why not go whole hog? I’d never heard the one about a suicidal co-pilot. The standard conspiracy meme is that the plane was seized by remote control and flown to Diego Garcia. (I.E. the computers on planes now have a function that allows a controller on the ground to take over, for safety reasons. It’s also been proven that a car can be hacked into, hence the theory that journalist Michael Hastings was intentionally “driven” into a tree.)

    So, did the US do this just to play? There’s talk that it was payback for some political/economic thing the Malaysians had already done, or said. I’m sure someone here can fill us in. There’s even a Part B, (that MH17 was really the same plane) but some things are too nuts to repeat.

    • 回复: @Avery
  127. Avery 说:
    @RobinG

    Yes, of course: a Wikipedia entry “rebukes” it.
    Sorry “well rebukes” it.

    Anybody and his brother can edit Wiki pages.
    And does.
    Nothing has been proven conclusively about the Kursk sinking and nothing has been rebuked.
    Only a handful of people know what really happened, and they are not talking.
    Maybe in 50 years the truth will come out.
    也许。

    US sub torpedoing it is one of the plausible explanations.
    在其他人中。
    Noting has been rebuked.

  128. LondonBob 说:
    @Ron Unz

    My professor of Russian studies at LSE endorsed the French film made about the Kursk, The Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters, which says the US sunk the sub. The US and Russia agreed to cover it up and Russia got a big debt relief for their silence/as compensation. A highly plausible scenario.

    Who knows with MH370, very odd it should just disappear, someone is holding something back.

    My brother studied for his PHD in the US, he was talking to a US politician when he commented like that missile that hit TWA 800, then whoops I shouldn’t have said that. Given all the eye witness testimony it is highly likely it was accidentally shotdown by the US Navy undertaking exercises in the area at the time

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  129. Karl 说:

    >> the pretext being some rocks in the Pacific in which the United States cannot possibly have a vital national interest. Or, really, any interest.

    Interesting. I was going to say the same thing about the Chinese. It ain’t their rocks, and they have no business being there.

  130. Karl 说:
    @John

    >>> The Chinese retaliate through other means, maybe economics

    so let them buy the sovereign bonds of Zimbabwe or Venezuela.

    They need to park their money somewhere outside their country – otherwise, they would be using all that money to build up their own country, n’est pas?

  131. Karl 说:
    @Stan D Mute

    >>> We buy so much from China because it is the cheapest, not because there aren’t a million garment factories in Pakistan.

    I -do- understand the point of your rhetoric. However comma – it’s the Bangladeshis (not the Pakistanis) who are eating China’s lunch in the rag trade.

  132. @Bruce

    The Chinese would be right to see it as a provocation at best and a possible real attack by Washington’s idiots.

    A real attack with 1 warship? The Chinese are probably smart enough to consider that a reach.

  133. Ron Unz 说:
    @LondonBob

    It’s a very sad situation that these days I often regard the remarks of an anonymous internet commenter as being far more credible than the claims of our entire MSM…

  134. Ron Unz 说:
    @Stan D Mute

    The US is an evil empire rotting within. And our military escapades are distilled proofs of this evil exported. But there is no force on earth than can deliver the much deserved “whooping of a lifetime.” You seriously underestimate the military power of America.

    Well, that’s certainly possible, and I possess no great military expertise. But I wonder…

    It’s been over sixty years since America fought even a half-serious military opponent, and during that war our forces were at times thrown into headlong retreat by the North Koreans and the Chinese, surviving destruction only because of our total air superiority.

    For decades our entire government has been run by its Ministry of Propaganda, our weapons procurement decisions determined by corruption, and our military promotions heavily influenced by “diversity” considerations. History is filled with countries run along similar lines that performed less than successfully when they eventually found themselves in a real war.

    Suppose we got into a war with China. Obviously, we could use our ICBMs to slaughter vast numbers of Chinese, while suffering many, many millions of dead under their nuclear retaliation. But suppose we were fortunate enough to keep the conflict as entirely a military-vs-military one.

    From the articles I’ve read, it sounds like the Chinese could quickly destroy our carriers with their long-range missiles. Isn’t our force-projection strategy almost entirely based on those carrier task forces? Certainly, we could blockade China and inflict painful economic damage by preventing their importation of oil and other raw materials, at least until the Chinese better developed their transport lines with Russia. But we export almost nothing to China and import from them a large fraction of everything we buy in our stores, so just the outbreak of war alone would inflict a huge economic blockade against ourselves. And I suspect our society is far less able to cope with domestic economic hardship than that of China.

    Here’s an economic graph from one of the articles I published a few years ago, and—notwithstanding MSM “spin”—the exponential trendlines have remained unchanged during the five years since:

    https://www.unz.com/article/chinas-rise-americas-fall/

    Discounting MSM propaganda and looking at that graph, which country would you expect to fare better in a military confrontation?

    • 回复: @Stan D Mute
    , @Ace
  135. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    No. We haven’t been building artificial islands to secure trade lanes. We have just been stealing entire islands and using a little unbolt diplomacy to force other nations into letting us put a base on their land. Why fuss with creating an island when you can just steal one like we did at Diego Garcia, Hawai, and Puerto Rico.

  136. Bill Jones 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Thanks for the laugh, I do enjoy well done satire, please play again soon.

  137. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Ron Unz

    China and Russia act like conventional nation states. Acting in the interests of the country. America acts like a country owned by the mafia who only care about cashing in now with little to no regard for what happens to the host country.

    • 同意: Ace
  138. denk 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    *We and the Brits before us consistently strove to maintain a freedom of the seas foreign policy for over two Hundred Years. *

    u know about the mining of nicaragua harbor ?
    then there’s the hijacking of chinese freighter yinhe by high sea pirates aka usn in international water…
    the same high pirates aka usn also take it upon themselves to 禁令 shippings on open sea to inspect for *contraband* cargoes.

    now can u show me one incident of chinese violation of fon ?

    p.s.
    william blum
    自从男人说服女人们需要男人来保护她们以来,这是最聪明的保护球拍。如果所有男人都消失了一夜,那么有多少女人会害怕走上街头?

  139. denk 说:
    @Drapetomaniac

    not being a man of words, especially english,
    i like to believe in
    a picture speaks a thousand words !

    but it seems there’r lots of 我的国家是对是错 *patriots*
    here 🙁

  140. Bill Jones 说:
    @TomSchmidt

    Please show me how $1 is paid for defense. It’s for aggression.

    On half a trillion dollars a year the murderous clowns couldn’t defend their own headquarters against $12 worth of boxcutters.

    Or so we are told.

  141. Bill Jones 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    “We and the Brits before us consistently strove to maintain a freedom of the seas foreign policy for over two Hundred Years”

    And the issue is now if you are are moron, a lying pos or both. The US blockade of Japans ships led to Pearl harbor.

    • 回复: @Thomas O. Meehan
    , @Karl
  142. denk, ….”the same high pirates aka usn also take it upon themselves to interdict shippings on open sea to inspect for *contraband* cargoes.”

    Yes I remember reading somewhere about our participation, with the British, interdicting slave ships off the coast of Africa. Was that the sort of thing you hand in mind?

    Yes, the US CIA planted some rather anemic little mines against the commie regime in Nicaragua. Perhaps you are too young to remember the cold war. I remember it. It was in all the papers.

    Your commentary, like many others here, is just a tiresome recitation of grips about my country. It’s boring and adds nothing to the discussion of Fred’s topic.

    • 回复: @denk
  143. 5371 说:
    @Avery

    I refer to the last sentence of your own comment.

  144. @Ron Unz

    I would agree with you that Hillary, McCain and pretty much any establishment GOP candidate are crazy, because they all support the War party and want to depose Assad. Obama does not seem soo crazy; he was very reluctant to get involved in Libya and has tried not to in Syria , despite immense pressure from home and abroad. If Hillary becomes the next C.I.C. , more crazy American interventionism will follow.

  145. denk 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    *yes, the US CIA planted some rather anemic little mines against the commie regime in Nicaragua.*

    anemic !!!
    usa was wanted by the world court for 国家恐怖主义 but ignored the jurisdiction.
    criminal still at large. !

    *slave ships* ?

    no im talking about the 21c, i hope u’r not being willfully obtuse !
    high sea pirates aka usn conducted fraudulent wot patrols on international waters, stopping shipping willy nilly to inspect cargoes, the yinhe saga was the most notorious example.
    this most prolific violators of fon is now masquerading as fon enforcer in scs !
    why is this irrelevant to the article ?

    *boring *?
    u aint bothered one bit by what unitedsnake has been doing in your name, such as genocides in iraq ?
    thats very interesting !
    另一个 我的国家是对是错 guy ?

  146. @Bill Jones

    Bill Jones, “The US blockade of Japans ships led to Pearl harbor.”

    In fact there was no “Blockade.” The USA, the UK, the Netherlands, and I think, France, did employ economic sanctions on Japan over Japanese aggression in China. Nobody interfered with Japanese maritime rights of passage. Nobody. Perhaps the word you were groping for in your ignorant fury was EMBARGO.

    Try checking the factual basis of what you write before displaying your total ignorance. I’m not responsible for your lack of historical knowledge.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  147. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Thomas O. Meehan

    Lol. You are completely ignorant of history. Quit being such a blind propagandist.

    The US blockaded Cuba and Japan. The UK blockaded Germany. You will probably say that these were justified but that is exactly the same thing China would say. Only they wouldn’t be blockading a country, they would only be keeping their trade lanes open.

  148. @Ron Unz

    Discounting MSM propaganda and looking at that graph, which country would you expect to fare better in a military confrontation?

    Thats GDP per capita growth Ron. Growth from what? Where was China in 1980? Where was the USA? What’s current GDP per capita in each?

    The thing I think everyone is missing is America’s overwhelming advantage in technology. We have things, weapons, that are not public knowledge. Just look at our Black budget for an idea of how much money we’ve dumped into secret stuff and consider how many years that’s been ongoing. China is a net importer of fuel and raw materials, so we don’t really need to attack them directly either, just engage in siege warfare cutting off their supplies. They cannot project force to us and can only cut off our supply of cheap garments and iPhones. My suspicion however is that we could take down their entire communications infrastructure any time we wanted, burn their satellites, and locate their submarine assets – just to start. And we know that the Russians, who have been ahead of the Chinese in nuclear capabilities, have no where near the targeting sophistication we have nor any real answer to our missile defense technologies. That’s just from info that’s been “leaked” (i.e. Known to such a high degree of confidence that we aren’t worried about it).

    Think of this another way, the military is the only organization permitted to use IQ tests and assign people based on results yes? So they can flaunt their ability to shun the PC zeitgeist re Africans. And yet they are willing to put women in combat jobs? Why? Scared of women rising up and demanding to be shot at? Or absurdly over-confident? Do you think China or Russia have any real secrets from the USA?

    None will really know unless they have SecDef level clearance, but everything we see speaks to an America that sees no real challengers. If we did see a challenger there would be nonstop hysteria from government “leaks” demanding a doubling or tripling of our defense budgets. And we wouldn’t be saying to girls, “sure honey, you can play Rambo with the rough boys..”

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
    , @Anonymous
  149. denk 说:

    *Many Chinese today may hate the Japanese, but they also know that America is doing to them today what America did to Japan before the Pearl Harbor attack. They may hate to openly admit this, but America is slowly trying to put a chokehold on China’s oil supplies by conquering Iraq, Libya, South Sudan and, soon, Iran. America is already stirring up trouble in South China Sea.

    By [embargoes and other economic sanctions], including oil-supply chokeholds, America has consistently been at the forefront of provoking and promoting war. After all these years, I wonder what underlying philosophy drives this war-loving culture.*

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/01/01/reader-mail/what-drives-a-war-loving-culture/#.VjeECG5K8bV

  150. Ron Unz 说:
    @Stan D Mute

    Well, all of that is certainly possible. It’s obviously difficult for any of us, least of all myself, to accurately predict how America’s secret weapons would fare against China’s secret weapons in a hypothetical future war. But based on the limited information available to us, I’m rather skeptical.

    First, many seemingly competent military analysts have published endless scathing accounts of our bloated weapons procurement programs, which seem more designed to give tens of billions of revenue to contractors than to actually produce timely and effective military hardware. Perhaps China has similar problems, but perhaps not.

    Or take the amusing testimony of that top general claiming that we’d spent $500M to train Syrian rebels and only 4-5 rebels actually came out the other end. Consider also that all the money we spent training the Afghan and Iraqi armies was wasted, and the armies immediately ran away when faced with small numbers of determined Islamic rebels.

    Aren’t our satellite-launching efforts largely dependent upon Russian rockets because our top aerospace companies can’t build their own? Didn’t the government just claim that Chinese hackers had stolen the entire security clearance database for four million federal employees?

    It seems to me that our recent military efforts have an unbroken record of disastrous failure, corruption, and incompetence. And in numerous other areas, our government and top leaders spout total nonsense and seem to believe in all sorts of things that obviously aren’t true.

    Suppose you encounter an entrepreneur who believes in all sorts of crazy, ridiculous things, seems neck-deep in corruption and incompetence, and has a long record of recent failure. Maybe his “secret invention” will suddenly make him rich and famous. Maybe you should provide your bank account information to the Nigerians who offered to wire you millions of dollars in that email. But probably not.

    • 回复: @Buzz Mohawk
    , @rod1963
  151. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Stan D Mute

    斯坦。

    The American military is so technologically advanced that it cannot beat an army in Afganistan?

    How will they fare against a competent Chinese military that that is fighting in its own backyard and fighting for its for its very existance?

    Remember that China has built up its own military to st fight the very war that would go down with the US. They have carrier killing missiles and quiet subs that have gone undetected before.

    China has also taken steps to prevent being blockaded via pipelines to Russia and also filling it’s strageic petroleum reserves. China can take down our satellites just like we can take down theirs.

    If it really is an all out war, China can sink the dollar and sink both economies. In a protracted war, China can raise revenue through trade. While the US would have gone to heavily tax and inflate to raise revenue for a war.

    America is fighting a war on several fronts, in the middle east, in Ukraine, and China. China would just have to defend it’s homeland.

    So yeah, America could eventually win if it really wanted too. But not without destroying itself in the process.

    • 回复: @Stan d Mute
  152. @Ron Unz

    Sometimes we don’t say what we know because we don’t want anyone to know how we find out these things.

    Giving away data tells everybody what you are capable of finding out and sometimes how you do it. Why would we do that?

    Just because the US doesn’t tell the world what it knows about a disappeared airplane doesn’t mean the US made the airplane disappear. That’s just your kneejerk conclusion resulting from your conflation of our China policy with the admittedly insane stuff we have done elsewhere.

    This issue of open seas stands alone, as it has for two-hundred years. I am sorry you don’t get that.

    I must admit, however, that upon retrospect, my earlier comments drifted into typical American, naive jingoism. I apologize for that.

    Respectfully as always,
    嗡嗡声

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  153. @Ron Unz

    “Aren’t our satellite-launching efforts largely dependent upon Russian rockets because our top aerospace companies can’t build their own?”

    You are showing a lack of knowledge here. (I won’t hold it against you. I am far more ignorant on more issues than this.)

    It is only the launches of people into Low Earth Orbit to the “International” Space Station boondoggle that currently relies on Russian rockets. That is unimportant, and the US was wise to just let the Shuttle die and get out of that business.

    We have tremendous capability to launch satellites and everything else unmanned into orbit and beyond.

    Did you happen to notice that we recently flew by Pluto? An American rocket launched that spacecraft to a velocity higher than any other object in history to do this. It was all navigated and controlled from JPL, south of you in Pasadena.

    • 回复: @Avery
  154. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    China is not blocking open seas for anyone.

    A Chinese base threatens the sea lanes the same as an American base does. Only America has a history of aggressive interference and of blockading sea lanes. China does not.

    • 回复: @Karl
  155. @Anonymous

    The American military is so technologically advanced that it cannot beat an army in Afganistan?

    America is rotten from within, as I’ve said in this thread. You conflate our unwillingness with inability. We are terrified of creating another Dresden or Nagasaki so we go to “war” by order in our military not to kill people or break things.

    Remember that China …

    Was spanked HARD by Japan. Yes, they’ve come a long way since then, but then so has the US.

    As for the economics, can China supply her own fuel? Can she feed her people? Those are the metrics that would matter.

    • 回复: @L.K
    , @denk
  156. Avery 说:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    {You are showing a lack of knowledge here. (I won’t hold it against you. I am far more ignorant on more issues than this.)
    It is only the launches of people into Low Earth Orbit to the “International” Space Station boondoggle that currently relies on Russian rockets. }

    http://defensetech.org/2015/06/26/pentagon-will-rely-on-russian-rocket-engines-for-years/
    [Any Uncle Sam replacement to the cheap yet powerful Russian rocket engine used to launch U.S. military satellites is still years away, officials acknowledged.]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/world/europe/pentagon-seeks-easing-of-ban-on-russian-rockets-for-us-space-missions.html?_r=0
    [WASHINGTON — After Russia annexed Crimea last year, Congress passed legislation that forced the Pentagon to stop buying Russian rocket engines that have been used since 2000 to help launch American military and intelligence satellites into space.
    Now, that simple act of punishment is proving difficult to keep in place.
    Only five months after the ban became law, the Pentagon is pressing Congress to ease it.
    The Pentagon says that additional Russian engines will be needed for at least a few more years to ensure access to space for the country’s most delicate defense and intelligence technology.]

    According to these sources, it is not just “….the launches of people into Low Earth Orbit to the “International” Space Station boondoggle….”: it is US defense and intelligence launches that need Russian rocket engines.

    So either you are the one who is showing a lack of knowledge, or the two sources I cited are, or you are lying.

    它是哪一个?

  157. L.K 说:
    @Stan d Mute

    Stan D Mute goes:
    “…Our nukes are more accurate and reliable, by far, than any others.”

    Pure nonsense. Russia is ahead of the US in that department.

    Stan D Mute goes:
    “[China]Was spanked HARD by Japan. Yes, they’ve come a long way since then, but then so has the US.”

    China was very backwards when it fought against Japan, and highly divided internally.
    Still, though the japanese gained many tactical victories against the chinese they could not defeat them decisively. Already before Pearl Harbor, the japanese were stuck in a quagmire in china, by early 41 they had suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties and some 100,000 kia.

    When the US led coalition fought against the Chinese and north koreans in the early 50s, China was STILL pretty backwards.
    As Mr.Unz has said, all the US military might then could not defeat them and the war was a stalemate. The US carpet bombed North Korea, dropping more bombs there than in the entire pacific campaign in WW2 against Japan.
    Still, the US failed to win.
    Since then, the technological gap between China and ZUSA has been closing very fast. China is no longer the backward country it once was.
    Pick a fight(conventional) with China in her near abroad and they will whoop your hubristic zamerican butts.
    I won’t even say anything about Russia. Think zusa could win a conventional war in, say, east Ukraine? Dream on.
    If it goes nuclear, Zusa might destroy Russia, maybe, but in turn, the Russians would turn the US into a radioactive parking lot.

    “One could write encyclopedias detailing the breadth and depth of America’s military might. We look like clowns in Arabia due to our milquetoast Rules of Engagement.”
    Typical Bs excuse.
    Sure, lets hear what some US vets have to say about those ‘milquetoast Rules of Engagement’;



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSy-d_QPg0

  158. denk 说:
    @Stan d Mute

    * as I’ve said in this thread. You conflate our unwillingness with inability. We are terrified of creating another Dresden or Nagasaki so we go to “war” by order in our military not to kill people or break things. *

    somebody pass me the sick bag !
    how many fallujah have u perpetrated since ww2 ?

    .............
    +In Fallujah, under conditions of limited food, contaminated water, and massive injuries, for those seeking food, water or medicine there was another problem, “there were so many [US] snipers, anyone leaving their house was killed.” On November 12th we learned “among the first major targets [in the assault on Fallujah] were the hospitals.” A civilian hospital and a trauma clinic were destroyed in a massive air raid, the main hospital was captured by US troops, ambulances were prohibited from traveling into the besieged city and delivering patients in need of emergency care (the US also announced that any and all moving civilian vehicles were designated free-fire targets). Much of the city’s water and electricity supplies were cut off making “emergency care all but impossible, in the words of Dr. Hashem Issawi, and contrary to international law, soldiers were “empowered to destroy whatever needs to be destroyed.” In the razed clinic, US bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients, according to clinic worker Dr. Sami al-Jumaili. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Fallujah general hospital “had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical center” before it was hit by US bombs.+

    听起来很熟悉 ?
    u’ve just repeated that *错误* in kunduz again !

    http://www.uruknet.info/?p=18007

    +between 4,000 and 6,000″ mostly civilians were killed. In addition, “36,000 of the city’s 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines,” and up to “200,000 residents were forced to flee, creating a refugee population the size of Tacoma.” Creating a wasteland is a form of “collective punishment” and is a war crime. 浪费费卢杰的领导层尚未追究责任.+

    genocides in nam, cambodia, laos, indonesia, africa, iraq, libya,syria…
    no the unitedsnake doesnt belong in scs or ukraine or syria, it should be in the dock at the world court。 !

    but who’d bring the snake to justice ?
    when somebody tries to sell me the christian faith, i always shut him up with this,
    if there’s a god and he’d allow these shits to happen right under his nose, u can take it back and shaft it up your axx !

    • 回复: @anonymous
  159. Karl 说:
    @Bill Jones

    >> The US blockade of Japans ships led to Pearl harbor

    Spoken like a true woman.

    “I was forced to cheat on my husband because he didn’t do enough chores around the house”

    • 回复: @denk
  160. Karl 说:
    @Anonymous

    >>> China is not blocking open seas for anyone.

    >A Chinese base threatens the sea lanes the same as an American base does. Only America has a >history of aggressive interference and of blockading sea lanes. China does not.

    Try selling that song and dance that to the vessel-charter brokers in Singapore.

    • 回复: @denk
  161. denk 说:
    @Karl

    孩子,
    ms kelly has got more 科琼斯 than all of u rednecks put together, :-0
    http://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2014/12/putting-saints-in-jail.html

  162. denk 说:
    @Karl

    *Try selling that song and dance that to the vessel-charter brokers in Singapore.*

    i’ve shown dozens of unitedsnake violation of fon,
    so far nobody has taken up my challenge to produce one case of chinese transgression, are u game, kid ?

  163. Fred, in case you haven’t noticed we’re being invaded by a hostile army of third-world savages from Mexico, Asian and Africa. I agree that we’re targeting the wrong enemy. The real enemy is within our borders.

  164. Ace 说:
    @Peter Schaeffer

    “Don’t just do something, stand there” is a strategy we should try sometime. Let some other countries incur massive expense for a change

  165. Ace 说:
    @annamaria

    One thing one can’t get away from when talking about America – it’s saturated with Christian hypocrisy.

  166. Ace 说:
    @L.K

    Your reply to Jeff77450’s reasonable and accurate observation did not refute what he said or demonstrate that he is a dumb-**** 美国人。

    “America is the bully” is not a refutation of “deal with bullies early.”

  167. Ace 说:
    @Henry

    Our carrier battle groups are awesome military phenomena. Our air force can strike anywhere in the world. Europe has more than 3.5M active and reserve military.

    One thing they all have in common is that they do not protect the West from unarmed civilians invading by foot and rubber boat. If one of the civilians has a cold, a Western soldier will give him a hanky and some hot chocolate.

  168. Ace 说:
    @Ron Unz

    The answer to your question depends on what each country’s GDP was in 1980. If China’s was very low, say 1T, a 500% increase in five years would result in a GDP of 5T. A 10% increase in five years for a 10T GDP – 11T.

    • 回复: @geokat62
  169. geokat62 说:
    @Ace

    If China’s was very low, say 1T, a 500% increase in five years would result in a GDP of 5T...

    Shouldn’t this read:

    If China’s was very low, say 1T, a 500% increase in five years would result in a GDP of 6T...

    • 回复: @Ace
  170. anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @denk

    +In Fallujah, under conditions of limited food, contaminated water, and massive injuries, for those seeking food, water or medicine there was another problem, “there were so many [US] snipers, anyone leaving their house was killed.”

    There’s actually books and even a movie celebrating the bravery of American troops in their demolition of Fallujah. Amazing isn’t it how they can cast themselves as heroes in crushing some place like that with an air force, artillery, snipers, armored vehicles, thermite and all the rest.

    • 回复: @denk
  171. denk 说:
    @Ron Unz

    您好,

    this is one of the best analysis of the mh370 *失踪* ,

    +Located on the geostrategic Malacca Strait, Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim oil-producing nation with a “Look East” policy allying itself with Japan and China. Last year the Malaysian and Chinese governments established an economic alliance, which includes Asian access to world oil reserves. In the eyes of Washington and its allies, these are sufficient grounds to treat Kuala Lumpur as an adversary, +

    http://www.rense.com/general96/mh370.html

  172. denk 说:
    @anonymous

    fallujah is hell , yet its just the tip of an iceberg.

    for example, one of the *rule of engagement* in iraq demands….
    *If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherf*cker on the street.*

    an entire encylopaedia can be written on murkkan war crimes.
    murkka, your name is 邪恶

  173. Ace 说:
    @geokat62

    It should indeed. Somebody is to blame for that error!

  174. rod1963 说:
    @Ron Unz

    Aren’t our satellite-launching efforts largely dependent upon Russian rockets because our top aerospace companies can’t build their own? Didn’t the government just claim that Chinese hackers had stolen the entire security clearance database for four million federal employees?

    Yes to all of that. We also had the design files for the F-35 stolen by the Chinese as well. No loss there though. I remember industry insiders laughing at the Russians for copying the B-1B bomber. The Ruskies had no idea they copied a lemon.

    That said, we are not the country we were in terms of aerospace, far from it. Especially in regards to launch vehicles. We’ve regressed to 1950’s level in that department. A lot of it was a result of endemic corruption within the aerospace industry and a massive wave of consolidation among aerospace companies in the 90’s that caused a loss of a lot talent that had taken decades to build up was lost in a matter of a couple years.

    Heck by all rights we should have had NERVA based rocket systems and moon base operational by now. Instead we can barely maintain that orbital junkpile the ISS, even then we need the Russians to help us.

    The new companies like Space-X seem to be floundering or redoing Apollo level tech.

  175. @Ron Unz

    I can’t imagine the US deliberately downing a civilian airliner and then covering it up, but I also can’t explain the US bombing of the Doctors without Borders hospital in Afghanistan. What’s your theory on that one?

    I think if America had a white Republican president, that hospital bombing would be a much bigger news story.

    • 回复: @Ron Unz
  176. Avery 说:

    {I can’t imagine the US deliberately downing a civilian airliner and then covering it up,}

    Operation Northwoods, 1962:

    To create public support for an invasion of Cuba after Castro take-over, US military proposed carrying out terrorist acts against US civilian and military targets and blaming Cuba.
    Part of the plan was to shoot down a civilian airliner.
    President Kennedy rejected the plan presented to him by Joint Chiefs outright.

  177. koala 说:
    @Astuteobservor II

    The Chinese have great resilience,they did not knee jerk after the nuking of Tianjin Port-nor have they dismissed it.Their response will come.Their last skirmish was with the Viets in the late seventies.Instead of war ,they are doing business and building a better country [and world].The expansion of high speed rail etc, planned by PR China ,for the western world,is the way forward NOT the continuous war/destabilisation/terrorist promotion by segments of US/Israel/Britain/Saudi/Turkey and the NATO nutcases.Worldwide ,the recognition of the culprits is recognised.G. Soros funding and promoting the invasion of “refugees” to overrun europe.The countries manufacturing armaments to sustain and extend wars.Those using nukes to collapse buildings or urge nations to support their wars.Their time is coming to an end.Now is the time to protest.Tell your neighbours,friends and family to protest to your governments.Enough is enough!”Make the changes or we will move you out”.It’s time for Peace and Progress!
    PS Don’t fear the Chinese-they prefer a good feed to a good fight, however they will not back down when challenged.Don’t prod the Dragon!Tenacity is their strength.
    PPS Who is supplying the money for wars and why isn’t it being tracked re ISIS/ISIL/DAESH?
    PPPS PR China is setting up it’s outer defence perimeter with island reclaimation.
    PPPPS Let’s hear the squeals and snorts when a naval vessel decides to investigate Guam/Diego Garcia/Hawaii re international waters access[especially if there a MAS plane in a hanger!

  178. Ron Unz 说:
    @Dave Pinsen

    I can’t imagine the US deliberately downing a civilian airliner and then covering it up, but I also can’t explain the US bombing of the Doctors without Borders hospital in Afghanistan. What’s your theory on that one?

    I haven’t closely followed the latter, but I assume that the American military thought there was at least one important “bad” person there, so they destroyed the entire hospital and killed dozens of medical staff, pretty much what they’ve done lots of other times.

    As for the MH-370 disappearance, the hypothesis is that the US shot it down semi-accidentally, namely because it was somewhere it shouldn’t have been, much like the USSR had semi-accidentally destroyed KAL-007. In the other cases, the likely American shootdown of the TWA flight out of NYC was almost certainly a pure accident, as was (probably) our shootdown of that Iranian jetliner in Iranian airspace during the Iran-Iraq war.

    On the other hand, I tend to believe the shootdown of MH-170 in Ukraine by (probably) “our” side was deliberate, a false-flag to blame on the Russians.

    It’s very interesting that just a couple of days after the crash of that Russian flight in Egypt, the US has now already released satellite information seeming to show it was probably a bomb. Meanwhile, over a year after the loss of MH-170 in the heavily-monitored Ukraine war zone, the US hasn’t released any satellite or other evidence showing the alleged BUK missile. This leaves me *极其* skeptical of the official US claims…

    • 回复: @PandaAtWar
    , @RadicalCenter
  179. @Big Bill

    Big Bill, couldn’t agree more. I could never figure out why we commenced to sending so much money (and jobs) in terms of trade to China. I mean, what did we expect them to spend it all on…their poor? What we did for them is akin to taking a penny ante, small town local hood and financing him into a global Al Capone. Whatever China is today is lock, stock and barrel our doing and ours alone. And as an aside…that muslim invasion that Europe is now experiencing is totally our doing as well.

    • 回复: @PandaAtWar
    , @denk
    , @denk
  180. PandaAtWar 说:
    @Seoulsurvivor

    I could never figure out why we commenced to sending so much money (and jobs) in terms of trade to China

    You could never figure it out?

    Panda could.

    HBD!

    Yes, the reason is applied HBD theory at work.

    You see, low IQ folk usually do stupid things, more often than not take full credits for achievements that weren’t theirs in the first place (i.e. immediate gratification) , and later you know what, they could never figure out why.

    See? Simples! ROFL

  181. PandaAtWar 说:
    @Ron Unz

    A popular yet unconfirmed “conspiracy theory” within Chinese language blogosphere (probably casually leaked to the web by Pantagon& Associates to “justify” the shot down of MH-370) is that:

    A mother equipment that controls all US Unmanned Aerial Vehicle was accidentally left to Afghanistan, which secretly sold it to China. China then took the tons-weight equipment home using Malaysian Airline as a cover. That’s why there were unusual high percentage of passengers on board MH-370 being telecommunication experts from telco giants such as ZTE, Huawei, and a high-ranking China telecom official. The US intel got the leak and decided to shot it down not letting China to crack the codes. To give a warning to Malaysian PM was just another 1-stone-2-brids side effect, since the PM was more supporting China at the moment and his family is also the majority shareholder of Malaysian Airline.

    So the US knows what happened and for some reason does not tell the public; Thai military know and Malaysian govt knows but they don’t want troubles and dare not to speak out (implying that there were “big boys” involved, unlikely an accident); China didn’t know in the beginning and soon knew and for some reason prefers not to tell. This “conspiracy theory” fits all.

    • 回复: @Anonymous
  182. denk 说:
    @Seoulsurvivor

    if building on an uninhabitated isle in no man’s sea, in china’s own backyard, makes china an *al capone* [sic], then what’r those who robbed at gun point most of the world’s premium real estate from norh america to hawaii, peurto rico [the oldest colony still occupied by the *oldest democrazy*], guam, diego garcia, okinawa, jeju, …., slaughtering, evicting the indigenuous in the process ?

    从马嘴里…。
    general smedley butler, usmc
    *I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

    1914年,我帮助墨西哥,特别是坦皮科确保了美国的石油利益。我帮助海地和古巴成为了国家城市银行男孩筹集收入的一个不错的地方。我帮助强奸了六个中美洲共和国华尔街的好处。 敲诈行为的记录很长。 1909年至1912年,我帮助净化了尼加拉瓜的布朗兄弟国际银行业务(我在哪里听说过这个名字?)。 1916年,我为多米尼加共和国的美国糖业利益而亮了起来。在中国,我帮助它看到标准石油公司的发展不受干扰。

    那几年 I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents。 *

    same old, same old, my boy.

    http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm

  183. denk 说:
    @Seoulsurvivor

    *couldn’t agree more. I could never figure out why we commenced to sending so much money (and jobs) in terms of trade to China. I mean, what did we expect them to spend it all on…their poor?*

    罗夫茂,
    u 应该 worry !
    when the roof are clumbling down at the home front , when schools are closing cuz there no more funding?
    have u ever wondered how did your 当选 leaders spend your tax monies,
    *53 cents of every dollar that they are paying into taxes is going to the military to an astonishing figure there is an enormous, enormous amount of money being blown on war an killing and destruction* [1]

    what happens to charity starts at home, dude ?

    p.s.
    tku very much,china is doing fine by itself, !
    https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/chinas-incredible-success-at-wiping-out-urban-pove/

    [1]
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31690.htm

  184. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:
    @PandaAtWar

    Interesting. I had no idea the Malaysian PM had such close ties with Malaysian airlines. Using a Malaysian airline in Ukraine is definitely a way to send a message.

  185. denk 说:

    in 2009, unitedsnake released 17 uighurs militants from gitmo.
    washington wont send them back to china cuz they *might be tortured*, [cough, cough ]
    in the end uncle sham offered 200m hard cash to palau isle to take in these *freedom fighters*

    this yank asked a good Q
    +So if China caught Bin Laden and 17 of his cronies, would China refuse to give him to us and release him to some tiny pacific island? What would our response be to that? +

    this yank wasnt amused,
    +我将以 22 万美元的价格买下其中的两个。 我会把它们安置在我的车库里,只要它们还活着,我就会每天煮豌豆和烤肉。 哎呀! 200亿给17名维吾尔恐怖分子。 我不认为200亿美元会在这里完全停止。
    在许多美国人无家可归、没有食物的情况下,政府正在为这 17 名维吾尔人投入巨资。 如果政府以上帝的速度消费,我毫不怀疑美国终有一天会破产。
    +

    well i’ve got news for u buddies, inflation is biting really hard these days…..
    washington spent a cool 500m bucks to nurture five *freedom fighters* in syria !!

    假叔叔
    -who, me ?, blame the fucking inflation, i couldnt help it – !

    well of cause u can help it, axxhole, 带上你的 *full spectrum dominion bs* back and shaft it up your ass !

    trouble with the unitedsnake is,
    它的所有 *elected leaders* are too busy trying to 统治世界, even when roofs are crumbling down at the home front !

    even worse, chest thumping patriots, aka mushrooms, cheer their leaders on , while the war street, mic fat cats are laughing all the way to the bank !
    呵呵呵

    • 回复: @Astuteobservor II
  186. @denk

    damn, at least try to make sense in your hate.

    • 回复: @denk
  187. @Ron Unz

    Never thought I’d come to trust the US government as little as I trust the Russian government — which is to say, not at all.

    They’re both users, liars, murderers, oppressors, with different languages and symbolism but the same contempt for regular people and our right to live free.

  188. denk 说:
    @Astuteobservor II

    wow what’ve we got here, another pissed off *爱国者* !
    im sorry to shatter your delusion, kid.
    发表 911 the ff of the century ,when uncle sham declared *you’r either with us 或反对 us*
    he forgot to tell u that us doesnt include u, the 99% useless eaters !
    u’r expendable assets, to be sacrificed on the altar of *national interest* whenever its called for,

    what kind of govn would side with foreign dictators against its own people ?
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2000/0225/p11s1.html

    does unitedsnake has any honor, think so ?

    p.s.
    if 精明observer [sic] cant make sense of whats going on here, better stick with harry potters and leave politics to the adults.
    呵呵呵

    • 回复: @Astuteobservor II
  189. @denk

    hate all you want, just make sure it make sense. other wise you are just babbling, like some of the other crazy commenters around here.

    • 回复: @denk
  190. denk 说:
    @Astuteobservor II

    hey kiddie,

    那些 *疯狂的* posters are at least making a pov.
    u’r the one whining one liners here !

    p.s.
    u can keep babbling here but im not gonna waste time entertaining a whinner.

    p.s.
    about your moniker, are u sure u didnt mix it up, i mean u’r anything but *精明*,
    呵呵呵

    • 回复: @Astuteobservor II
  191. @denk

    oooh so a troll huh, my bad 🙂 I will move along now.

  192. @Ron Unz

    As a small additional contribution of circumstantial evidence on the MH370 disappearance: Sunday’s Herald-Sun – a fat Murdoch middle brow tabloid – reported that the Chinese government had offered the Australian government $20 million to carry on with the search for MH370. (Most of the passengers were Chinese and very few were Australians).

  193. @Ron Unz

    Supporting your view that China’s island building and claims in the South China Sea are an understandable response to the alternative, namely allowing the US to dominate the seas to the east of China without restraint, is what you will find by Googling “innocent passage law of the sea”. Indeed the idea that trade is going to be threatened is a beat up. Even the worst scenario of forcing Japan’s large imports of oil and iron ore to travel to the east of the Phillipines would only add minor additional costs.

    It could be argued that China is contributing to peaceful relations by creating island bases rather than sending aircraft carriers and aircraft in chest thumping exercoses near US navy ships.

  194. @annamaria

    You seem to be sold on the Russian view of these things – or maybe you are selling. An Australian born academic whom I have every reason to regard as completely honest – if not particularly likely to give Russia the benefit of the doubt – tells me that he listens every day to both Russian and and Ukrainian news, as well as being informed by his own Australian born son who has been running a software startup in Kiev for a year, and that the Russians have got great value for the $1.5 billion they have spent on propaganda. In other words they have induced widespread belief in crap about the nature of the Kiev government and oppression of Russian speakers who, he tells me are to be found in large numbers in the Ukrainian army speaking Russian.

  195. annamaria 说:

    This is not the first time you quote someone you know who quotes his Australian son working in Ukraine. If you have such a critical mind, why have not you had a thought about why this Australian-born son found himself in the distant Ukraine and why he is so successful there, in this economically depressed country? If you are genuinely baffled by why so many Ukrainians speak Russian, perhaps you should consult this Australian-born son about the cultural foundations of Ukraine. Would not you be surprised that the Belorussian journalist (that is basically unknown in the West – and in Belorussia and Russia for that matter) had received (recently) a Nobel price in journalistic literature as a Belorussian author even if she published in Russian?

  196. Sam J. 说:
    @Ron Unz

    I could care less about China owning Islands in the China Sea. None of our ships go through there. We don’t have any ships. The press always shows an arc of control from the Islands but they overfly many other countries and these arcs of control don’t don’t really exist.

    The idea that carriers aren’t useful in incorrect. They can park well away from areas we want to attack or monitor and their planes can attacks from a distance. True they can be easily disabled with missiles but you have to find them first and the pacific is a really, really big place. A stationary base you can find but a carrier can move constantly.

    There’s the idea that satellites can find them but satellites themselves are very weak targets. They’re almost impossible to hide because the cold of space. Any heat at all off a satellite is a huge contrast and easy to see…and kill.

    MH-370 was brought down by the Israeli’s. As soon as it became public Israeli officials went on the news saying it went to Pakistan or Iran. They showed photo-shopped photos of Iranians that supposedly hijacked the plane. Unfortunately for them they were caught with an exact copy of the Malaysian plane in a hanger in Israel. That plane was bought by an Israeli company in Florida to be, supposedly, dismantled for parts. Like Boeing doesn’t make parts for their planes! The plane went from Florida to France for a while then Israel. Tracked by plane spotters who track planes for a hobby. The Jews, or least their leaders, are a tribe of psychopaths. Psychopaths have all these crazy deep plans to fool people but as we see it’s just the same old false flag over and over. Jews control the flight controls of air liners through anti-piracy boxes on the planes that can take control of the planes.

    I first heard of this through Christopher Bollyn.

    http://nodisinfo.com/israel/

    The US needs to completely sever any control over any entity in the US from Jewish control banking, security, military, any entity.

    Putin nailed it when talking about color revolutions when he said something like,”..They consider themselves such brilliant artist they can’t stop…”. Psychopaths get away with what they do because no one in their right mind would do the stupid stuff they do. As soon as you realize they’re psychopaths things change and their deceptions are easily seen. They’re just naked aggressive hoaxes that are easily penetrated.

    These provocations against Russia and China in areas controlled by Israelis but not necessarily the US(flight controls and Ukraine) could be another stupid Jew psychopath plan. I don’t think their roll in 9-11 is going to be hidden forever. If it becomes widely known and believed that they did 9-11, which they did, then their whole rule the world plan goes to shit. So as a back up they get a war going Russia/China vs. the US and the biggest powers on the planet are knocked out in a nuclear war and Israel hits the middle east with nukes at the same time. They rebuild over time as every one else is dead. This may sound crazy but to a Jew psychopath this is a perfectly reasonable plan. After all no one but them matters.

  197. @Ron Unz

    Aha, here’s the place to say that if you really want to propagate plausible conspiracy theories you need the obsessively nit picking French at book length. I have been long content with the murder-siicide by pilot (not co-pilot) as the best explanation of the MH380 disappearance, and paid little attention to commenter denk’s ranting revival of the US-did-it theories in your 21st April 2020 Covid 19 origins article thread which you have closed to further comment. So… now that I have fun something on the subject to support your view of US government madness I invite you to listen to

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/mh370/13191440

    并阅读这个

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13831291/new-book-malaysian-flight-mh370-shot-down/

    BTW I cannot agree that it is very probable that US satellite surveillance would have picked up what happened to MH370 if vast areas of the Indian Ocean are to be accounted for.

    • 回复: @Wizard of Oz
  198. @Wizard of Oz

    Sorry “murder-suicide” and of course MH-370 where clumsy fingers or premature AMD provided MH-380.

    A bit of a problem to explain your “MH-170” repeated above as senior moments nearly 6 years ago, but it did at least prove your slight attention to the spat over MH-17😎😉

    举一个例子:

    Meanwhile, over a year after the loss of MH-170 in the heavily-monitored Ukraine war zone, the US hasn’t released any satellite or other evidence showing the alleged BUK missile. This leaves me *极其* skeptical of the official US claims…

当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Fred Reed评论
Personal 古典文学
不是汤姆·杰斐逊的想法
听起来对我来说就像是一所低级的美国大学
很长一段时间,大多数人都会厌烦地狱,但是我觉得自己很喜欢