Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kuzmich @Firebat: Whenever you agree with Black or not because of your personal bias, he does not base his argument on fact and he is wrong.
Thankfully its not a matter of your personal belief its just how things are.
|
Dont be so harsh. As far as I'm concerned, you haven't really linked us to any official documents either, and as such, your replies are devoid of palpable facts too. You seem to think that I pull everything out of my ass, while you speak as if you actualy worked for the russian secret services. So as long as you dont feed us facts, you might as well get rid of your little self-righteous attitude. Thank you.
But if you want to take this to a whole new level, where every bits of arguments must be backed, this conversation is going to be very strained. But here, let me start....
How are the mighty fallen
Jun 30th 2005 | BALTISK AND MOSCOW
From The Economist print edition From the Economist...
"
According to official figures, the armed forces suffer roughly 1,000 non-combat deaths every year. Military prosecutors uncovered 46 in just one week in June.
This being Russia, that revelation, like prosecutors' other remarks about theft and embezzlement among officers, was seen as a bid to undermine Sergei Ivanov, the defence minister, who is tipped as a possible successor to President Vladimir Putin. Mr Ivanov has promised more transparency over military deaths—a departure from his usual line, which is to insist that military depravity is declining. The normal justifications are that crime and suicide are national problems (“the army is a copy of society and suffers from all its diseases,” wrote Trotsky, “usually at a higher temperature”)
ut dropping conscription altogether is still not in prospect. Colonel-General Anatoly Mazurkevich argues that if Russia's armed forces—now less than half their size at the collapse of the Soviet Union—shrink any more, they will be unable to defend the country's territory. A counter-argument is that these unreformed armed forces could never repel a serious invasion anyway. “If you've got 1.2m men who've got the wrong kit and can't be deployed,” says one western liaison officer, “the situation is not much better than when the Germans came.” Russia's nuclear weapons are its only real defence against strategic threats. It would be better to make the army lean and nimble enough to tackle local insurgencies and terrorism.
Russian generals have always relied on two strategic superfluities: lots of land and enough people to compensate for the poverty of their equipment, training and feeding. But Russia's rapidly shrinking population, combined with draft-dodging, is threatening the old calculus."
This article seem to contradict pretty much the whole base of your argument. Unless, of course, that you can prove to me that you are more informed than this journalist, or the western liaison officer mentioned in this article.
[quote but in this scenario it is being invaded, so China will maintain logistical advantage just because of its defender status, plus Russian and Kazahstan would most surely help it out in an event of war with US. Also just the amount of Chinese troops and machinery would ensure its victory over US if US ever tried to invade.[/quote]
I agree. But Russia's willingness to defend China depends on the reason for the war, which as never been specified. Maybe that in this scenario, China is trying to anexe the whole of south-east Asia, or even siberia, which according to Samuel Huntington, would absolutly terrify Moscow. You have to agree, an hegemonous, all-mighty China certainly wouldn't serve Russia's interest.
Even if this is just about Taiwan, China would still be the agressor, and it should be dealt with accordingly, for the sake of international laws. So in this scenario, which is the most likely, Russia wouldn't have any reason to join with the chinese either. In fact, it would probably condemn the whole thing, and sit back and watch.
But in every case, it is irealistic to believe that America would be the agressor. With such an economicaly integreted and wealthy country like China, the whole world is benefiting from its wealth, and it would be detrimental for everyone to wage war and ruin it all.
So in any case, lets assum that China is the agressor, for it is the one who has to gain the most from an expended sphere of control.
According to a study done by chinese generals, "
Eighty percent of China's oil currently passes through the Strait of Malacca, and China believes the sea area is "controlled by the U.S. Navy." Oil-tanker traffic through the Strait, which is closest to Indonesia, is projected to grow from 10 million barrels a day in 2002 to 20 million barrels a day in 2020, the report said.
And we all know that China doesnt have a navy capable of matching the american one. Therefore, since China's energy consumption is mainly based on importation, and that the USa are the one country that are very well capable to project its military everywhere in the world, a blockade of China's energy supply would be exceedingly easy to manage.
Quote:
|
like nano technology for example
|
And where does nano technology fit in all of this? I mean, since it must be true that you are so ahead of us since you said it yourself, what does it prove? Or do I really have to enumerate every aspects of life where the West is ahead of the rest of the world to shut you up?
Anyway, assuming that russia technology is not half as bad as I think it is, and I do, as long as China wont produce its own comparable stuff, I'll always bet on them yankes in a war.
But all in all, China's recent wealth can come crashing pretty easely, I doubt that they would be able to manage it very well in a full blown war with the world's hyperpower.