The peoples and governments of western nations see anything different as a perceived threat, either physically or morally. You can be black or brown or yellow, but as long as you pay homage to the western values of ‘human rights’, ‘free press’ and ‘democracy’ etc as defined by the west then thats fine, you’ll be tolerated. But no matter what color you are, if you are seen as not adhering to those values, you are a threat.

Yes, indeed – US/UK support for Iran (Shah) and Iraq (Saddam) was in view of their enlightened approach to open and free societies, oh and of course being such strong Christian countries as well. And of course the Americans were in no way influenced in their arguements with Japan by Japanese treatment of China?

Well it certainly won’t help your case if you happen to be Muslim or atheist.

Yet the US maintains reasonable relations with a number of Gulf states and they’re all lovey-dovey with Pakistan again. Of course if your idea of being Muslim is Jew-baiting, (does Israel count as an easy ride?) then yes, you’ll get a harder time from Israel’s chief ally.

You need to brush up on your history mate. It was not the west that helped kick start the Chinese economy, it was the decision of the Chinese government of open up the economy and create a business friendly environment that started the process

How else was it going to start than with China opening up (a bit of westernisation perhaps?)?

, and it was overseas Chinese businessmen from HK and Taiwan and other Asian countries like Japan that were the first to invest in China. Western companies only started to move in in force after they saw the kind of profits that were up for grabs.

And, the Western companies are there and you cannot tell me the Chinese don’t want them, nor for that matter wouldn’t miss them?

The US and the west did not actively ‘help’ China get to where it is today, if anything, they actively tried to slow and contain China’s growth even to this day with export restrictions on advanced technologies and deliberate policies to keep China out of international co-operative research projects like the ISS etc.

What exactly do you expect? Despite its free-market pretentions, China is still a communist regime (remember the Red Peril, Red Bear,e tc?) and got to be China by defeating the faction supported by the US. So now you expect them just to export their high tech to someone they don’t completely trust (probably something to do with Taiwan in there). And while we’re at it, the US isn’t fond of sharing all its high-tech with its close allies, so don’t feel China is the odd one out.

As for not trading with China. Well why don’t go go through your weekly shopping, wardrobe and appliances and try picking out the ones without any Chinese content and see if you can survive with just those items before suggesting you can live without China so lightly. :rolleyes:

Perhaps thats why I put this line in my post

Now it may be to keep the folks back home happy (cheap goods) and “control” China’s growth, but the US adn Western Europe stands to suffer greatly if China goes wrong.

Every western nation has its own national traits and customs, or do you consider the French and British to be identical in all things? They are westernized, not colonized.

Indeed not, and the question came over more sarcastic than intended (it wasn’t intended at all:o ). Nor, in case swerve thinks I’m insulting his good lady, was I being derogatory! I was curious where the boundary lies – I think the Japanese are one of the most distinctive peoples in the world, based on my limited experienced, and while they certainly do have some of the trappings of the Western World have never personally put them in that catagory. Perhaps its that there history is so distinct – after all most of the Western world has derived from European colonisation and control, but Japan hasn’t (well post-war might be more contentious there….)

Could you not read? What did Mat say again? :rolleyes:

I see a comment about the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese war and Mongolia, not Mongol empire (which is surely outside the 400 year period anyway). If I’ve misunderstood something, please enlighten me.

The report is balanced your right, but there are certain things I do not agree with so much. The Asymetric warfare approach would work if you are fighting an occupying force but america doesnt want to occupy China, just send it back to the stone age, and or ruin chinas economy.

Not occupying China, did you not see the Pepsi umbrellas;)

I don’t think the US knows what it wants to do with China. Certainly ruining its economy or sending “it back to the stone age” are not likely to be high on the list. Any US Govt doing that would soon be out on its ear from the likes of said Pepsi, Coke, etc.

No. That’s a situation not even US carriers can solve. Carriers as big stick diplomacy have never solved anything from Vietnam to Iraq.

No, but having the carriers has meant that when it came to the fighting, they had the ability to carry out air missions without reliance on their enemy’s neighbours. Carriers are not just diplomacy.

As a matter of fact, what makes it worst is that the largest proportion of missions generated and munitions delivered in all the US campaigns are still coming out of land based air forces.

You would find that in situations like the above, it would be better to hatch an alliance with a neighboring country or faction, so you can put a forward base, which in turn where you can base your army and air force units.

And if you cannot find such a willing accompliace? or the situation develops at short notice? Surely the (a) point is that the CV gives you the independance/flexibility NOT to have to rely on someone else.

In which case, China is better served having a global C41 capability first, and followed by no less than important massive air lift capability.

No quibble with those needs, but which is going to make the public in the West/Japan/Australia take note more – a CV or big,lumbering aircraft?

Several.

Much of the Iranian petrol productin infrastructure was located within range of Iraqi bombers during the Iran – Iraq war and were prime targets, with some completely destroyed and many of the remainder badly damaged.

Thus the seeds were sown for the limitations in Iranian domestic petrol refining capacity seen today.

So why haven’t they built new ones I hear you say?

The US embargo on financing any construction in Iran (and a similar ban is in place in the UK and much of the EU). Companies are strange like that, they like to be paid, with lots of hard cash up front and regular progress payments.

But Iran can finance it themselves I hear you say?

The main companies who could build the Mullah’s their petrol refining facilities are affiliated with the major oil companies, all of who hate the Mullahs with a passion, as Khomeini and his merry gang nationalised the foreign oil company’s assets after the Islamic revolution in Iran.

The construction companies are not going to piiss off their main customers and business partners to do deals with a bunch of West-hating clerics.

Surely there are non-Western construction companies who would do the construction you ask?

Indeed, however the demand for refining capability worldwide is such that they have a long list of other, less politically unacceptable customers to build for first, Anyway, very few of them want to really piiss of the US, because the industry is a small one, and what comes around, goes around.

Thus Iran has to buy most of the petrol it uses, which suits the oil companies, the US and the other oil producing countries.

Hope this helps.

Unicorn

Cheers Unicorn, as informative as always.

True but they would operate under or within the umbrella of DD(X)’s supported by LCS. All backed up by Marine or Naval Aircraft………..:D

Would still be inclined to have some sort of defensive missile system. Would not be expected to stand-up under massed AShM attack, more against the odd-missile threat of a coastal sub or of course Hezbollah-type agency!

Ed: mate good luck in getting those extras, from everything I’ve read, they are only going to have the three. These are costing too much as is the new carriers and the Vanguard fleet, Oh not to mention the Daring class. Basically the RN is becoming a shadow of it’s former glory simply because the ministers have become too greedy and don’t want to spend money on defence!

Well a forth is looking reasonably likely as some of the lead in work is now funded. But with talk of a build rate of 1 every two years, I guess they are not going to maintain more than seven SSN total (12 years between first and last boat of a class seems somewhat excessive to me)….

numbers

The RN still has a requirement for 8, and plans for C1 (large combat ship, possibly cheaper T-45), C2 (medium capability patrol, and C3 (cheap patrol ship). The aim is, apparently, to have eight of each, which would obviously be a major step forward. The UK also needs to replace its mine warfare vessels, and arguably this could be combined with C2 and C3, by buying a UK LCS equivalent.

One thing to remember is that a RN task force would be able to call on other ships too, so it is not simply limited to the T-45s. If the UK can get 16 Type 45s and 16 other patrol ships, then it would be enough to adequately defend four battlegroups. For proper defence of a carrier, you really only need four escorts. The UK practice has been to include a ‘goalkeeper’ frigate next to the carrier, but this was due to the fact that the carriers lacked adequate self defence capabilities (by carrying Sea Dart, not Sea Wolf missiles). In the future, any carrier could carry missiles like the RIM-116 RAM, which would be enough to protect the carrier, thus dispensing with the need for the goalkeeper frigate. Four T-45s would simply be the UK equivalent of the US assigning Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas.”

I would be surprised (pleasantly so) if the RN managed 8 T-45 AAW and 8 T-45mod and had a decent class of medium capability vessels. I assume the C-1 and C-2 would be T-23 replacements…

But I’m not convinced that 8 off primary AAW vessels will really allow for four battlegroups – inevitably some will be in refit/extended readiness/flying the flag on the wrong side of the globe/etc. But then I also don’t see both CVs and two amphibious groups being up and running at one time either, so I don’t suppose it matters.:(

Are 4 escorts (presumably a 2 AAW and 2 other) enough to protect a light carrier and its replenishment? My fear with all such things, is what if one goes ?

Do you know “European” that that Battle of Trafalgar happened two centuries ago, and that the French-English wars have been over for a long time now ?

Pretty sure Trafalgar came after the act of Union, therefore French-British wars thank you.

About the French and English who “don’t like each other”, I usually see this kind of dislike in the medias (especially the english press, in fact), but I never saw it from any English person I had the the oppotunity to meet. And I met many of hem…

So, pardon me, but the Cliché of the so-called “traditionnal French-English hate” is BS, pure and simple!!!

There is still dislike, but I think it is much more on a national level i.e. its not individual persons, but what the relevant nation/government does. Just consider all the ranting about Iraq!

Of course it could be that all the English people you meet are showing their well-renowned good manners;)