China-- the truly civilized nation of the world and AEW.

[Charles Gray]

A bit hyperbolic, but China has just banned commercials for hemmeroids
products, sanitary material for ladies and other such wonderful things
during the hours 7-9 PM. As someone who'se been eating dinner when
I'm granted the joy of an all too detailed CGI vision of what cuases
that itching, burning sensation, I can say that today the qusestion of
who is most civilized is won, hands down, by the PRC.

Now, on to the serious question-- does China have any equivelant to
our AWACS? I would assume that if they ever intend to match the U.S.
or even have a serious ability to project power, they're going to need
soemthing like it, especially since GW II demonstrated just how
suicidal even heavily hardened fixed C&C is.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> A bit hyperbolic, but China has just banned commercials for hemmeroids
> products, sanitary material for ladies and other such wonderful things
> during the hours 7-9 PM. As someone who'se been eating dinner when
> I'm granted the joy of an all too detailed CGI vision of what cuases
> that itching, burning sensation, I can say that today the qusestion of
> who is most civilized is won, hands down, by the PRC.
>
> Now, on to the serious question-- does China have any equivelant to
> our AWACS? I would assume that if they ever intend to match the U.S.
> or even have a serious ability to project power, they're going to need
> soemthing like it, especially since GW II demonstrated just how
> suicidal even heavily hardened fixed C&C is.

They reportedly have some Y-8's with British supplied radars acting in the
AEW role:

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/aircraft/special/y8aew.asp

Other than that, they reportedly are negotiating with the Russians for
purchase of some A-50 Mainstays, since their earlier deal with Israel for an
IL-76 outfitted with the Phalcon fell through due to US pressure.

Brooks

[Ugly Bob]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> A bit hyperbolic, but China has just banned commercials for hemmeroids
> products, sanitary material for ladies and other such wonderful things
> during the hours 7-9 PM. As someone who'se been eating dinner when
> I'm granted the joy of an all too detailed CGI vision of what cuases
> that itching, burning sensation, I can say that today the qusestion of
> who is most civilized is won, hands down, by the PRC.

Hmmm, can't argue with that.

> Now, on to the serious question-- does China have any equivelant to
> our AWACS? I would assume that if they ever intend to match the U.S.
> or even have a serious ability to project power, they're going to need
> soemthing like it, especially since GW II demonstrated just how
> suicidal even heavily hardened fixed C&C is.

Apparently, they've been working on it since, at least, the seventies.

http://www.sinodefence.com/c4i/candc/awacs.asp

-Ugly Bob

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:15:52 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>A bit hyperbolic, but China has just banned commercials for hemmeroids
>products, sanitary material for ladies and other such wonderful things
>during the hours 7-9 PM. As someone who'se been eating dinner when
>I'm granted the joy of an all too detailed CGI vision of what cuases
>that itching, burning sensation, I can say that today the qusestion of
>who is most civilized is won, hands down, by the PRC.

That is called "government censorship", it is a sign of a repressive,
totalitarian regime, NOT civilization.
>
> Now, on to the serious question-- does China have any equivelant to
>our AWACS? I would assume that if they ever intend to match the U.S.
>or even have a serious ability to project power, they're going to need
>soemthing like it, especially since GW II demonstrated just how
>suicidal even heavily hardened fixed C&C is.

No, they do not, although Israel would love to sell them an inferior
system.

Al Minyard

[Charles Gray]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:03:52 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:15:52 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>>A bit hyperbolic, but China has just banned commercials for hemmeroids
>>products, sanitary material for ladies and other such wonderful things
>>during the hours 7-9 PM. As someone who'se been eating dinner when
>>I'm granted the joy of an all too detailed CGI vision of what cuases
>>that itching, burning sensation, I can say that today the qusestion of
>>who is most civilized is won, hands down, by the PRC.
>
>That is called "government censorship", it is a sign of a repressive,
>totalitarian regime, NOT civilization.
>>
Then the U.S. is a totalitarian regime--even here we often place
regulations on when and how purely commercial speech can be used. are
SPAM laws an example of totalitarian regimes? China, is, after many
years of refusing to admit that they're becoming a nasty dirty
capitalist society, finally coming to grips with the fact that if they
want to sustain their economic miracle, they have to start putting the
structural framework, in terms of law, in place. Just like their
recent *partial* acceptance of the idea of private property is the
first step to developing property law that works on a private basis.
Most of the Chinese I've worked with could care less about democracy
in China (hell, some of them think it would be the worst thing they
could experience), they just want a government that works and other
than that stays out of their hair as long as they stay out of its.
I've seen similar attitudes among Singaporan immigrants and some
coworkers. It's always dangerous to generalize, of course, but many
Asian cultures seem less wedded to the idea of democracy, for
democracy's sake.
The other probable reason is that people are still alive in all
these nations who remember when things were much, MUCH worse. Granted
China ain't a democracy, but if you have personal experience of the
joy of hte Cultural revolution, the current state of affairs doesn't
seem half bad.



>> Now, on to the serious question-- does China have any equivelant to
>>our AWACS? I would assume that if they ever intend to match the U.S.
>>or even have a serious ability to project power, they're going to need
>>soemthing like it, especially since GW II demonstrated just how
>>suicidal even heavily hardened fixed C&C is.
>
>No, they do not, although Israel would love to sell them an inferior
>system.
>
>Al Minyard
That's one thing that if I was a Chinese General, would be at the
top of my "To buy" list. It'd be a vital component of any conflict
with the U.S., but more seriously, would give China a powerful edge
over its neighbors, which is, IMHO a far more likely conflict than
some fight with the U.S.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:00:55 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:03:52 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:15:52 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>>
>>>A bit hyperbolic, but China has just banned commercials for hemmeroids
>>>products, sanitary material for ladies and other such wonderful things
>>>during the hours 7-9 PM. As someone who'se been eating dinner when
>>>I'm granted the joy of an all too detailed CGI vision of what cuases
>>>that itching, burning sensation, I can say that today the qusestion of
>>>who is most civilized is won, hands down, by the PRC.
>>
>>That is called "government censorship", it is a sign of a repressive,
>>totalitarian regime, NOT civilization.
>>>
> Then the U.S. is a totalitarian regime--even here we often place
>regulations on when and how purely commercial speech can be used. are
>SPAM laws an example of totalitarian regimes? China, is, after many
>years of refusing to admit that they're becoming a nasty dirty
>capitalist society, finally coming to grips with the fact that if they
>want to sustain their economic miracle, they have to start putting the
>structural framework, in terms of law, in place. Just like their
>recent *partial* acceptance of the idea of private property is the
>first step to developing property law that works on a private basis.
> Most of the Chinese I've worked with could care less about democracy
>in China (hell, some of them think it would be the worst thing they
>could experience), they just want a government that works and other
>than that stays out of their hair as long as they stay out of its.
> I've seen similar attitudes among Singaporan immigrants and some
>coworkers. It's always dangerous to generalize, of course, but many
>Asian cultures seem less wedded to the idea of democracy, for
>democracy's sake.
> The other probable reason is that people are still alive in all
>these nations who remember when things were much, MUCH worse. Granted
>China ain't a democracy, but if you have personal experience of the
>joy of hte Cultural revolution, the current state of affairs doesn't
>seem half bad.

So a totalitarian state is just fine as long as it is not "quite" as bad
as the totalitarian state that it replaced?? Limits on "commercial speech"
in the US are generally self imposed by the media. Spam is intrusive,
and is not analogous to television advertising.
>
>
>
>>> Now, on to the serious question-- does China have any equivelant to
>>>our AWACS? I would assume that if they ever intend to match the U.S.
>>>or even have a serious ability to project power, they're going to need
>>>soemthing like it, especially since GW II demonstrated just how
>>>suicidal even heavily hardened fixed C&C is.
>>
>>No, they do not, although Israel would love to sell them an inferior
>>system.
>>
>>Al Minyard
> That's one thing that if I was a Chinese General, would be at the
>top of my "To buy" list. It'd be a vital component of any conflict
>with the U.S., but more seriously, would give China a powerful edge
>over its neighbors, which is, IMHO a far more likely conflict than
>some fight with the U.S.

Just as long as we keep it off of everyone's "to sell" list.

Al Minyard

[Charles Gray]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:30:00 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:00:55 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:03:52 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>>

>
>So a totalitarian state is just fine as long as it is not "quite" as bad
>as the totalitarian state that it replaced?? Limits on "commercial speech"
>in the US are generally self imposed by the media. Spam is intrusive,
>and is not analogous to television advertising.
>>
Of couse it is. Or ot put it in a different way, if you're better
off than you were when you were a kid, and as akid you were better of
than your dad was, you're more likely to cut them some slack, on the
assumption that the same will hold true for your children.
I think in many respects the thing that killed the old Soviet Uniion
was that it was a totalitarian dictatorship that couldn't pay its
bills. China's much different-- the communist party (although they're
communist like the Holy Roman Empire was holy, roman, and an empire :)
)
Their communist party has paid the bills, and makes things very nice
economnically for a large portion of the population. They're also not
*nearly* as repressive as they were say, from the 60's to the mid
seventies, so again, you get the "it's better than it was ten/twenty
years ago".
My personal belief is tht as the older generation dies off, you'll
start to see a gradual South Koreanization of China. The party needs
to keep the economy going, which means brining in more and more
business, and fostering a middle class-- which means eventually that
middle class is going to want control of the decision making process.
No idea exactly what will rise from that-- Singapore and Taiwan are
both examples of how prosperous Asian nations don't always follow the
U.S. model, but we will see a change.
>>
>>
>>>> Now, on to the serious question-- does China have any equivelant to
>>>>our AWACS? I would assume that if they ever intend to match the U.S.
>>>>or even have a serious ability to project power, they're going to need
>>>>soemthing like it, especially since GW II demonstrated just how
>>>>suicidal even heavily hardened fixed C&C is.
>>>
>>>No, they do not, although Israel would love to sell them an inferior
>>>system.
>>>
>>>Al Minyard
>> That's one thing that if I was a Chinese General, would be at the
>>top of my "To buy" list. It'd be a vital component of any conflict
>>with the U.S., but more seriously, would give China a powerful edge
>>over its neighbors, which is, IMHO a far more likely conflict than
>>some fight with the U.S.
>
>Just as long as we keep it off of everyone's "to sell" list.
>
>Al Minyard

Well, everyone who knows what their doing-- if China wants to buy
an Awacs from Botswana...
Of course, on a more serious note, CHina's ecnomy shows no signs of
abating, and one thing we know that produces is the ability to fund
better R&d-- in ten or twenty years we may face a China that will be
able to match our spending in R&D.

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:39:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:30:00 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:00:55 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:03:52 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>>So a totalitarian state is just fine as long as it is not "quite" as bad
>>as the totalitarian state that it replaced?? Limits on "commercial speech"
>>in the US are generally self imposed by the media. Spam is intrusive,
>>and is not analogous to television advertising.
>>>
> Of couse it is. Or ot put it in a different way, if you're better
>off than you were when you were a kid, and as akid you were better of
>than your dad was, you're more likely to cut them some slack, on the
>assumption that the same will hold true for your children.
> I think in many respects the thing that killed the old Soviet Uniion
>was that it was a totalitarian dictatorship that couldn't pay its
>bills. China's much different-- the communist party (although they're
>communist like the Holy Roman Empire was holy, roman, and an empire :)
>)
> Their communist party has paid the bills, and makes things very nice
>economnically for a large portion of the population. They're also not
>*nearly* as repressive as they were say, from the 60's to the mid
>seventies, so again, you get the "it's better than it was ten/twenty
>years ago".

If you think that China makes "things nice economically for a large portion
of the population" you must be comparing them to, say, Liberia.
By first world standards they are still a third world country.

> My personal belief is tht as the older generation dies off, you'll
>start to see a gradual South Koreanization of China. The party needs
>to keep the economy going, which means brining in more and more
>business, and fostering a middle class-- which means eventually that
>middle class is going to want control of the decision making process.
> No idea exactly what will rise from that-- Singapore and Taiwan are
>both examples of how prosperous Asian nations don't always follow the
>U.S. model, but we will see a change.
>>>

China has absolutely no experience with democracy. They do not
understand the concept. Totalitarian regimes are incapable of
attaining a decent standard of living for the "people".

>>>
>>>>> Now, on to the serious question-- does China have any equivelant to
>>>>>our AWACS? I would assume that if they ever intend to match the U.S.
>>>>>or even have a serious ability to project power, they're going to need
>>>>>soemthing like it, especially since GW II demonstrated just how
>>>>>suicidal even heavily hardened fixed C&C is.
>>>>
>>>>No, they do not, although Israel would love to sell them an inferior
>>>>system.
>>>>
>>>>Al Minyard
>>> That's one thing that if I was a Chinese General, would be at the
>>>top of my "To buy" list. It'd be a vital component of any conflict
>>>with the U.S., but more seriously, would give China a powerful edge
>>>over its neighbors, which is, IMHO a far more likely conflict than
>>>some fight with the U.S.
>>
>>Just as long as we keep it off of everyone's "to sell" list.
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
> Well, everyone who knows what their doing-- if China wants to buy
>an Awacs from Botswana...
> Of course, on a more serious note, CHina's ecnomy shows no signs of
>abating, and one thing we know that produces is the ability to fund
>better R&d-- in ten or twenty years we may face a China that will be
>able to match our spending in R&D.

Botswana does not have AWACS. China lacks the expertise to conduct
serious R&D, regardless of the money available.

Al Minyard