“The US doesn’t regard China as an enemy. Our trade, economic ties, and relationships are not those of two adversaries.”

well, if only it look like that.

i can understand why the US does what it does, it does not mean i agree with it. even thinking 20, 30, years into the future, the US defence strategy does not make much sense (well not based on what the US says anyways).

u have asked me to look at things from an american prespective, now i ask u to do the same – to interprite the US defence strategy as the chinese or even european leaders.

the US already have unchallenged miliatry supremicy, if anyone was to try to take on the US in a military sence, then they would loose, wouldnt matter if it is now, or 20, 30 ,40 years in the future.

the only true enemy the US faces are terrirosts, and all the new fancy US weapons arent much good against them.

so why does the US still want to widen the military gap between itself and the rest of the world (with all the take about china arming up, it can be easy to forget that the current round of US defence spending is aimed more to widen its military advantage then merely trying to re-balance it, NMD/airdomonence fighters etc)?

surely maintaining the status quo is acceptable and the rest of the money could be used to better tackle terrirosts by investing in homeland security and intelegence.

there is a saying that absolute power curropts absolutly, and that saying is not exclusive to individuals. given the current adminishtration’s unilateral approach, u can understand if other world leaders are more then a little nervous about putting their fate in america’s hands and hoping that america does not ask for sth they cannot give.

its a simple matter of weighing the necessity of each side’s actions. if put in china’s position, i dont think many reasonable ppl would not do as china is doing. in fact, i think most reasonable ppl would try to arm up quicker then the rate china is doing now.

on the other hand, how many reasonable ppl would choose to spend so much on weapons that are of little if any use against america’s most immediate threat?

u talk of the need to be propared, and how 9/11 should be a lesson. well if i were u, i might draw a slightly different lesson from 9/11.

what might have happened had the bush administration and clinton administration before it paid more attantion to world terrirosm instead of being fixated by china (and iraq in bush’s case)? how many extra counter-terrirost agents could the US have feilded if only 1% of the american military budget had been used on CT instead of buying weapons to fight a war that will never happen? how many more agents would there be if 2% had been used? 3%?………….

i find this ‘ring of steel’ termernology very amusing seeing how china has now become the world’s leading steel importer.

america might have constructed a ‘ring of steel’ around china, but china is absorbing that ring faster then the US can build it.:cool:

:rolleyes:

“a shrewd warrior always like to ensure potential threats are contained. US didnt get to the top by being kind, humane or stupid.”

what is stupid is trying to ensure such an overwhiling military advantage that no-one else would accpet, and interpriting the attaempts of other to address the balance of power as a hostile act.

the best idea is not to fight and beat everyone else, but to find a way so that u dont have to fight them, especially considering what is at stake for both sides.

“I have to respectfully disagree. The US has always supported Taiwan against China and has vowed to fight for Taiwan against China. You are saying that the US has just started viewing China as an enemy since 1991.”

is that why the US were selling china advanced weapons in the late 80s?

the US interfered to save taiwan being over-run in the 50s as it thought communist china was just another soviet satilite state, and so did everything it could to ‘contain’ china.

in the 80s, the US finally realised that china and russia had huge differences, so when about to try to take advantage of that.

make no mistake, the US and china were once strategic allies. it was tia an men and the subsequent collaps of the soviet threat the changed that.

cant it be a black cat?:confused:

‘.117’? whats the in mm?

might help to know that the plate is 40mm thick.

but seriouslu now ppl, lets get serious a tiny bit and give some real reasons as to why some many of you choose to use the ‘invisible mode’ while logged on?