An Independent Air Force - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By MB.
#13366052
Fig wrote:In laymans terms?


Redundancy is important.
User avatar
By killim
#13366122
In laymans terms?


If one link in the chain breaks you will surely want a backup ;)
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13366384
What does this have to do with seperate MA/MP corps, intelligence corps, Airwarfare, pencil-pushers, etc?
User avatar
By MB.
#13368404
I was talking to a friend of mine about this recently, and he very astutely pointed out that China operates a unified force structure and possesses the largest military in the world. Of course, the question of whether or not the People's Army Airforce and People's Army Navy could actaully contest control of the air, space and sea routes of communication with the United States will be continually debatable.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13369211
China is competitive with us in the feild of cyberwarfare, and there's been concerns with the improvement of their Navy. Overall, I'd say that they'd be competitive in a defensive war against us, to include littoral combat, but I'm sure you're well aware of their lack of force projection.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13372824
I'm sure you're well aware of their lack of force projection.


A temporary state of affairs. Their first 3 medium-carriers are already under construction.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13373086
I'm aware they're building their Naval power; however, they've got a far way to go before they'll be competitive with the US.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13373164
I'm aware they're building their Naval power; however, they've got a far way to go before they'll be competitive with the US.


'Fair way' being sometime within the next 20-30 years, which isn't all that long and is in fact irrrelevant considering nations exist on thousand year timescales. China was no.1 in all areas before, and it will be so again, then it will fall, then it will rise agian, ad infinitum until it isn't even called 'china' anymore and humans have 2 heads with 30 fingers on each hand.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13373219
China is a highly over populated, resource starved nation; to say its rise and fall is imminent and inevitable doesn't strike me as too realistic, unless it can gain control of Siberia. However, I doubt the next "fall" wouldn't see their influence limited permenantly if they lose many of their autonomous regions.

At any rate, this is about a unified command structure; to say that China will potentially have a powerful blue water Navy in 20-30 yrs is irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13373891
unless it can gain control of Siberia.


Typical western mode of thinking. The chinese trade for resources, they don't invade and occupy for them. Russia will play ball with a rich, eager to buy china, oh yes it will.

see their influence limited permenantly if they lose many of their autonomous regions.


They're only getting stronger and richer, so hypothesising that they will lose territory makes no sense.

At any rate, this is about a unified command structure;


This is a goal in their modernization process. Their military is continuously shrinking as they modernize it, as they are going for integration.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13374660
Igor Antunov wrote:unless it can gain control of Siberia.

Typical western mode of thinking. The chinese trade for resources, they don't invade and occupy for them. Russia will play ball with a rich, eager to buy china, oh yes it will.


You mean, "typical historical mode of thinking." :roll:

The point is, unless China specifically gains control of vast resources, they'll continue to have to compete for them; it'll continue having to import minerals, oil, food, etc. One major problem with looking at it as a potential military power is it's lack of economic security.

They're only getting stronger and richer, so hypothesising that they will lose territory makes no sense.


Right, and you think 7% growth is going to be sustainable? They'll plateau so enough, and you made reference to them "rising, falling, and rising again", which is why I pointed that out to you.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13374765
Right, and you think 7% growth is going to be sustainable?


They've sustained 10% growth on average over the past 20 years, and it looks to continue for the forseeable future, they only need another 20 years to surpass US economic might, and at that point they will STILL be just a developing country. Plenty of resources to go around for another couple of centuries, before were forced to plunge into the depths of space.

No doubt they will continue growing until they are fully developed, this means a per capita income of at least $40,000 or more per person, at that stage were talking 50% of the world economy concentrated in one country, as it was before, in ming china.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13379566
In a country of 1.7 Billion people? Don't be asinine, their only economic advantage is their cheap supply of labor, and proposing they'll maintain 10% growth for another 20 yrs. is highly unlikely.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#13382454
and proposing they'll maintain 10% growth for another 20 yrs. is highly unlikely.


You could have said the same 30 years ago in 1980. Growth survived multiple international recessions and never slowed overall. The average over that period is still over 10% per year.

In a country of 1.7 Billion people? Don't be asinine


EU is averaging $30,000 per capita at 502 million people after having it's economy destroyed in a world war and the eastern members have just emerged from a collapse after the soviet union. Europe also has no resource base to speak off. It was used up long ago. China is yet to develop her interior, untold resource wealth in those mountaneous regions. It's certainly possible.

their only economic advantage is their cheap supply of labor


And the fact that they have a workforce of over 800 million people, and later up to 1 billion people. They don't even ever have to be 50% as productive per person in order to produce more wealth overall, and national economic power comes from aggregate wealth produced in the country. It also benefits from being a centralized state, that wealth can be spent real quick, and targetted at specific sectors at the click of a finger.

I'm curious, when do you think China's growth will suddenly stop and start falling fast? When do you think China will fall into recession? 2015? 2025? You only have until 2025 before they overtake the US in nominal GDP and double the real gdp, so you'd better start praying for it's economy to collapse right now.
EU-BREXIT

there won't be anything to confirm Theresa May's[…]

I think those people are all a bunch of fucking i[…]

An EU army is now 110% an absolute necessity. A[…]

Canadian Federal Election

Scheer has dual US/Canadian citizenship and hasn'[…]