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