If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:11:46 -0600, "tscottme" wrote: Scott Ferrin wrote in message . .. In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen years. What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps communists is a happy coincidence. Roger that. The europeans are hardly our "friends". Al Minyard Sad as it is to contemplate very few countries are genuinely friendly with others. Friendship is usually predicated on usefulness and can be ruined rather quickly. I believe that communication is the key to increasing this valuable commodity and I think that the internet plays a part in this. Now if we can just keep from killing each other long enough for this and other communication avenues yet uninvented to take effect we just might avoid ruining it all irretrievably with WMD. I hope so anyway...or am I barking up an empty tree?...and are my little grand-babies doomed to become small pools of flaming smoking matter running off the edge of the concrete sidewalk near their school? -- -Gord. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Willshaw" Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:11 AM Subject: China to buy Eurofighters? "tscottme" wrote in message ... Scott Ferrin wrote in message ... In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen years. What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps communists is a happy coincidence. In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon. While the French Government and some corporate bodies have pressed for it the EU itself has stated that it has no plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent such deliveries taking place. There is a GAO report dating from 1998 that states that the current EU embargo does not enjoy a common interpretation; what makes you think that these "other" controls will have any real impact? In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching that is believed to have been used in the Chinese missile program. Finally of course we miust recall that Boeing has a large operation in China, publically states that it supports the one China policy and Condit is president of the US China business council. You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were agreed for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters that form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the WZ-9), Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support to the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that, just what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers. Brooks Keith |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
John Mullen wrote: Chad Irby wrote: In article , ess (phil hunt) wrote: The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't already). How can a shrinking economy, with high unemployment (Europe) overtake a growing economy, with decreasing unemployment (the US)? Can only happen if one or more of your assumptions here was wrong. Pick one, and tell us which, since none seem to be so according to any figures actually released. The only way the EU could pass the US economically would be if the US economy reversed the current trend and shrank several percent in one year, while the European economy reversed its trend and grew by the same amount. There's nothing in the cards to suggest either (this quarter's startling growth in the US economy pretty much puts the nail in that coffin). -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were agreed for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters that form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the WZ-9), Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support to the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that, just what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers. Which is going to be a real bitch. Imagine a decade or two in the future (if that ) and something serious going on with the US/Taiwan/China thing. Even if the US had the capability at that point to take out the Galileo satellites their hands would be tied by the prospect of all the users from "allied" countries being SOL. Not to mention the heat the US would take for doing it. Would it be possible for the US to jam Galileo while leaving Navstar working? Who knows but I'll bet someone is thinking real hard about it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:12:33 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 07:04:27 GMT, Scott Ferrin wrote: On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:09:10 +0000, ess (phil hunt) wrote: item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be lifted. item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited China and said arms embrago should be lifted. item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the embargo to end. Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and ASTER anti-aircraft missiles. There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at: http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen years. You say that as if you assume hostility is obviously going to happen. I'd like to see your reasoning for that... And it seems you assume that it won't. Hoping that nothing will ever happen isn't such a great idea because if it does and you're not prepared or worse have strengthened a potential advisary, you're begging for trouble. China is bent on becoming a superpower and also has it's eye on expansion and intimidation. Do you think Taiwan has 500 missiles pointed at it for kicks? At some point China will decide to give it a go. Either they get bitchslapped when they try it and maybe decide to stay home or they win and say to themselves "hmmm where to next?" |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message t... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Willshaw" Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:11 AM Subject: China to buy Eurofighters? "tscottme" wrote in message ... Scott Ferrin wrote in message ... In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen years. What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps communists is a happy coincidence. In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon. While the French Government and some corporate bodies have pressed for it the EU itself has stated that it has no plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent such deliveries taking place. There is a GAO report dating from 1998 that states that the current EU embargo does not enjoy a common interpretation; what makes you think that these "other" controls will have any real impact? The fact that arms sales have not taken place would seem a good indicator. Tje same GAO report you cite states "GAO found no instances of EU members entering into new agreements to sell China lethal military items after 1989, although some delivered lethal and nonlethal military items to China during the 1990s--apparently in connection with pre-embargo agreements" It also points out "since 1989, the President has issued waivers to: (a) allow the delivery to China of military items valued at $36.3 million to close out the U.S. government's pre-1989 defense agreements with China; and (b) license commercial military exports valued at over $312 million--primarily commercial satellite and encryption items" In other words there is little to chhose here. In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching that is believed to have been used in the Chinese missile program. Finally of course we miust recall that Boeing has a large operation in China, publically states that it supports the one China policy and Condit is president of the US China business council. You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were agreed for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters that form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the WZ-9), Searchwater as I'm sure you recall is hardly the most modern radar in the world but I'll agree that the decision was unwise but the Crotale sale (and that of Aspide) took place before 1989, at a time when the US was also happy to sell arms to China. Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support to the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that, just what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers. I'm not planning on hanging anybody, rather it seems apposite to point out that other nations including the US and Israel have sold China technology that is rather more sensitive and directly related to weapons production. Lets not forget what your GAO report also says "Russia and the Middle East have provided almost 90 percent of China's imported military items during this period" Israel being the main middle eastern player. Hell the Israelis sold China one of the best Air to Air missile systems in the world and one that included significant amounts of US technology. As for Galileo its a satnav system that is being set up as a civilian enterprise and will be run as a commercial organisation. How is that different from Boeing setting up shop build commercial aircraft in China ? I'd argue that tying China in to dependency on such an International system is a plus not a minus if we are considering collective security. Keith |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were agreed for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters that form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the WZ-9), Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support to the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that, just what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers. Which is going to be a real bitch. Imagine a decade or two in the future (if that ) and something serious going on with the US/Taiwan/China thing. Even if the US had the capability at that point to take out the Galileo satellites their hands would be tied by the prospect of all the users from "allied" countries being SOL. Not to mention the heat the US would take for doing it. Would it be possible for the US to jam Galileo while leaving Navstar working? Who knows but I'll bet someone is thinking real hard about it. So how would it be better if the Chinese stuck with Navstar or switched to Glonass ? Keith |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
So how would it be better if the Chinese stuck with Navstar or switched to Glonass ? Keith At least the US has control over Navstar. I don't know if they do this or not but I don't imagine it would be impossible to say, deny all service to a war zone except to those using such and such decription. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Adrian" wrote in news:bqkjnj$22of8i$1@ID-
66783.news.uni-berlin.de: "Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:09:10 +0000, ess (phil hunt) wrote: item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be lifted. item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited China and said arms embrago should be lifted. item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the embargo to end. Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and ASTER anti-aircraft missiles. There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at: http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen years. Please explain. I see no conflict coming. Adrian Edmonds Why do you think they are building more and more ICBMs,when Russia and the US are downsizing their nuclear arsenals? Or,the issue of Taiwan. -- Jim Yanik,NRA member jyanik-at-kua.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CAAC in China had approved below 116kg aircraft sold in China without airworthiness cetificate | Luo Zheng | Home Built | 0 | June 27th 04 03:50 AM |
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 7 | November 4th 03 11:44 PM |
Quit Bashing China! | Bob McKellar | Military Aviation | 12 | October 26th 03 06:06 PM |
"China blamed in '01 air collision" | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 2 | September 14th 03 06:08 PM |
China has taken notice it would seem | Mike Keown | Military Aviation | 8 | August 29th 03 07:09 PM |