Post #45,556
7/14/02 1:59:54 PM
|
Don't forget about Red China
[link|http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020713-92365049.htm|A problem that isn't going away while our attention is focussed elsewhere]
Excerpt:
However, Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai, a senior
Chinese general, in the late 1990s implicitly
threatened to use nuclear missiles against Los
Angeles if the United States were to defend Taiwan
from a mainland attack. The comments were made
to a former Pentagon official who reported them to
the White House as a threat by Beijing to use nuclear
arms.
The longer-range DF-31 "can reach much of the
United States," the report said.
According to the report, China has about 20
missiles capable of "targeting the United States" and
is increasing the number to 30 by 2005 and possibly
as many as 60 by 2010.
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/international/asia/13CHIN.html?ex=1027224000&en=aec3cd67e60a1bb2&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1|And don't go thinking they've reformed or anything]
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #45,561
7/14/02 3:44:26 PM
|
We aren't forgetting about them
our main concern is the terrorists now. Missiles we can detect by Radar, but not someone named Habib with a backpack full of explosives.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #45,566
7/14/02 4:15:50 PM
|
M.A.D. II
Okay, now you can learn what the rest of the world has understood for years.
This is what if feels like to know that an enemy nation has a nuke trained on you.
It seems that you've forgotten that feeling since the USSR broke up.
Again, another indication that our foreign policy has failed.
Might makes Right.
China wants Taiwan.
We don't want China to have Taiwan.
If China invades Taiwan, we will retaliate. Possibly nuclear.
So, China invests in nuclear weapons that can reach our cities.
We no longer have the ability to strike without fear of reprisal.
Once China has the ability to put the hurt on our cities (possibly even D.C.?), Might makes Right will cease to be an effective foreign policy.
We can trade nukes. But China will probably come out ahead in that (more territory and more people).
It's a shame we couldn't have found a foreign policy that wasn't based upon the concept of whomever can lay the biggest hurt down is "Right".
|
Post #45,573
7/14/02 6:57:15 PM
|
You forgot about the "Star Wars" program
Ronald Reagan's biggest bluff. Spend billions on $500USD hammers and toliet seats, and then say the money is going for building a nuclear defense system of killer satelites and other systems. Then show off Atari's "Missile Command" as the concept as to how the system will work. Use missiles to defend cities by knocking out enemy missiles and airplanes. It worked for a while, until people started asking what black hole the money was being sent into, and if we actually have a working defense.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #45,578
7/14/02 10:26:47 PM
|
On $500 hammers
Have you ever worked for a government contractor?
I have. Aerospace parts.
A part we'd sell to McDonnell Douglas for an F-15 Eagle for $25 would cost the government that same $25, plus a $750 fee for paperwork. Of course if they bought more than one, that paperwork fee didn't go up. They rarely bought more than 10 of any one part, though
Yes, it costs contractors that much to sell to the government. I could prove every penny.
Want to fix a black hole? Start by fixing >how< the government buys shit, it costs the taxpayers several times than the actual cost of >what< they buy.
-----
Steve
|
Post #45,579
7/14/02 10:42:51 PM
|
You can't fix how the government buys things....
Until you fix how the government handles employess who steal/double-book/etc.
Otherwise, you're just moving the corruption.
|
Post #45,588
7/15/02 12:55:59 AM
|
Having spent 11 years in audit defense and . . .
. . production cost estimating, I know the game pretty well.
My biggest problem was the law that said I couldn't sell to the government at a higher price than I sold to non-government entities, so it was necessary to differentiate the product wherever possible. If we couldn't demonstrate it was a different product, we had to figure out how much we could pad the non-government orders without losing the business. Fortunately, our competitors had the same problem, so it was sort of a game of chicken.
There was also this law that said that the maximum profit you could make on a government contract was 12%, and you had to give a bit to make the purchasing auditor look good, so the real allowed margin was less than 11%. A 10.8% profit just doesn't hack it when you are in a business with a 30% risk, so money has to be buried (and I are an expert at that).
To be awarded the contract, even though I was the low bidder, I had to show the auditor the profit was less than 12%, and at conclusion of every contract, a follow-up audit team would come in to verify we really did make less than 12%, all said and done.
Now, Lockheed, Boeing and McDD had real auditors, and you had to be very careful. Yes, they knew you had to hide money to stay in business, but you'd better be good at it because they were going to take it if they could. Government auditors, were all retired military who got the job on serivce points. If you could keep them awake, you could pull off stuff that would cause an Arthur Andersen partner to blanch white.
So, yes, the government really does get screwed, but not to anything like the extent people presume. When you see a hammer sell for $500, chances are, after meeting the spec and complying with the law and completing the paperwork that critter cost the manufacturer a good $420, perhaps more. On an order for two compliant toilet seats, the manufacturer's cost could easily exceed $1000 each. Just the set-up cost to make just two of anything is stunning - then add all that compliance paperwork . . .
Of course, the government has its reasons. Most of those specifications, regulations and paperwork nightmares were instituted ot prevent fraud. It's just an unfortunate side effect that they make fraud mandatory for survival.
Now, my experience is all pre-COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf), but I'me sure that's just made the game even more complex and interesting.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #45,591
7/15/02 1:29:07 AM
|
The game. Remember it well.
My biggest problem was the law that said I couldn't sell to the government at a higher price than I sold to non-government entities, so it was necessary to differentiate the product wherever possible. What we did was to include a separate line item on the contract for "paperwork", another line item for "mil-spec packaging" and finally, a line item for DoD "inspection". These were all demonstratable costs, based on our shop rate and G&A expense. That way I could sell the part to the feds at the same price I would sell it to the OEM (quantity discounts and price increases over time notwithstanding), retain the margin, and not take a bath on the cost of doing the other stuff. The mil-spec packaging was the best. Take a coupler made out of aluminun that's about an inch and half diameter and about an inch long. This part would have to be sealed in a plastic bag with the proper DoD part numbering information on it. It would have to then be individually boxed with more identification information, then those boxes would be put in larger boxes. Every piece of that packaging has to meet military standards and be certified from its manufacturer, right down to the ink used to print the information on the bags and boxes. Oh, and the the bags..the heat seal on the bags had to be tested (per government issue statistical sampling plans, of course) for strength and water tightness (some of the planes were on aircraft carriers). Same thing with the tape on the boxes. I had costs for all of that, and a squeaky clean audit trail to prove it. Finally, we weren't out to screw the government, our direct sales to the feds were mainly spares for aircraft already in service. The orginal part was sold to the OEM as commercial (FAA compliant) hardware, the same parts as used on commercial and private aircraft. We wanted (needed) to at least break even. Glad I'm not in that biz anymore, but I am working on a side project that falls under FDA requirements...which is starting to make the DoD look like a cakewalk. -----
Steve
|
Post #45,633
7/15/02 11:17:27 AM
|
Alas, we didn't have that option . .
. . the requirements we had from the primes were at least as stringent - and their inspectors were a lot pickier. Stuff that was good, but might be questioned, was marked "Not for primes" and sold to the government.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #45,655
7/15/02 12:42:12 PM
|
Thanx for ruining it for me
One of my favorite quotes from [link|http://us.imdb.com/Title?0116629|Independence Day] President Whitmore: I don't understand,where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?
Julius Levinson: You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you? :-) Darrell Spice, Jr.
[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #45,642
7/15/02 12:08:57 PM
7/15/02 3:33:42 PM
|
Re: Do you truly believe that ?
When ever in the past 2000 years did China *ever* *once* attack outside its borders or immediate sphere of hegemony. ?????. Yes they invaded Korea on a few occasions in that period and yes Tibet was invaded by China but both these countries are asian and within China's sphere of influence. The single biggest criticism of China by all historians was that the Mandarin class were so arrogant that they had no interest in the world outside China. China's greatest achievements when it sent a massive fleet into SE Asia in the 1400s (ships so big that today three of them they matched the size of small aircraft carriers). He reached India & Arabia & set up bases there.That admiral is almost unknown today because after all he achieved, the Mandarins decided he could add nothing to China's long term interests & the fleet was mothballed after he had done 30 years of travel & trade. Ad nothing has changed since in terms of Chinese imperialism or world aggression.
You call the country RED CHINA - that is just so much garbage. Although I am many years older than you & served in the military in the west when RED CHINA was our enemy (have relatives who fought the in Korea), but even as old as I am I am not so out of touch that I call it that any more. You should take the time to go visit the place before posting what seems essentially propaganda.
Here are some realpolitik facts - America will invade China or Taiwan long before the Chinese even have a quarter of the ability to attack US.
DSM
(#1 - cooled down & toned down - sorry the tone got so rough)
Edited by dmarker2
July 15, 2002, 03:32:50 PM EDT
Edited by dmarker2
July 15, 2002, 03:33:42 PM EDT
|
Post #45,647
7/15/02 12:17:27 PM
|
Not to increase your wrath but
heard anything on the Amir river border? last I heard it was a seething cauldron with the sovs pushing troops that way. Last news was over a year ago though. Also the Chinese had a thriving Amerian trade from the 1400's on and had a base in washington and traded with Alaska.
thanx,
bill
."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
|
Post #45,745
7/16/02 8:11:27 AM
|
Re: Not to increase your wrath but
Amir River, wasn't that where the Soviets sought to humiliate the under fed half armed Chinese in a jointly disputed border zone (certainly wasnt an Invasion). If I recall correctly the out gunned Chinese use wooden sticks to fight the much better armed Russians who shot holes in the Chinese. Oops of course - I am thinking back to the 1960s/70s. Nup not aware of any major Russian Chinese invasions in that area lately.
Re Trade in Washington in 1400s, that could only have been Admiral Zheng and his 7 voyages (as mentioned in my original post). Have seen drawings of his ships & they were awsum for their day. But, there is no mention that I can find about Zheng ever reaching Nth Am.
Perhaps this was someone else but I can find who ?
************
[link|http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html|Another item & same map of Admiral Zheng's know voyages (no Amerian here)]
[link|http://planet.time.net.my/CentralMarket/melaka101/chengho.htm|Another item & same map of Admiral Zheng's know voyages]
************
[link|http://www.oceansonline.com/zheng.htm|Voyages of Admiral Zheng]
The intro ...
"Our history of oceanography would not be complete without reference to the contributions that the Chinese have made to ocean exploration. While not as well-known as some of their other scientific and technological contributions, the Chinese own the distinction of assembling the largest fleet to ever sail on the ocean."
etc: etc:
"During his 28 year naval career, Admiral Zheng visited 37 countries, traveled around the tip of Africa into the Atlantic Ocean and commanded a single fleet whose numbers surpassed the combined fleets of all Europe. Between 1405 and 1433, at least 317 ships and 37,000 men were under his command. The flagship of the fleet was a nine-masted vessel measuring 440 feet, nearly 1.5 times the length of a football fields. Traveling with him was Sanbao who created a set of 24 maps praised for their accuracy. Zheng's journeys also stimulated a number of important maritime inventions, including central rudders, watertight compartments and various new types of sails. Perhaps more importantly, his voyages demonstrated the power of the Chinese civilization and yielded many important liasons between China and other nations."
"What makes Zheng's career even more remarkable is his rags-to-riches life story. Born as Ma He in 1371 to poor Muslim parents in Southwest China, he was captured as a young boy by the Chinese Army and castrated, as many prisoners of that time were so treated. Nonetheless, he dedicated himself to his studies, learning several languages and philosophy. At the age of ten, he was hired by a prince, who overthrew the emperor and rewarded Zheng He with command of the fleet."
"Admiral Zheng died in 1433 at the age of 60 on a return voyage from Africa. While his achievements are little known in the West (who give perhaps undue praise to Christopher Columbus), there are at least six images of Admiral Zheng preserved in temples."
"Soon after the Admiral's death, political changes in China diminished the importance of the Navy. It has not been the same since."
*******************************
Earliest evidence I can find is of De Soto in Nth Am in 1540 ...
[link|http://www.floridahistory.com/|Spanish in Nth America]
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #45,769
7/16/02 11:21:29 AM
|
earlier than I thought 499 AD
[link|http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Tower/1217/asia.html|link]
thanx,
bill
."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
|
Post #45,823
7/16/02 7:59:30 PM
|
Re: Interesting thoughts
"More evidence, according to the program writers, can be found when one goes to
Mexico and examines the Maya ruins. There are some striking similarities in sculpture
types between the early Chinese and Maya. Dragon types and others were presented.
There are also a minority of sculptures that show gods and men with distinctively Oriental
features and facial shapes. That is is distinct contrast to known Maya facial
reconstructions. Further, there was one sculpture presented that showed a man with
obvious Oriental features and a beard. Since it is widely accepted that Native Americans
were without facial hair, this is an oddity to be pondered."
The above has long been a mystery re the Olmec statues (big heads) but I had thought that Olmec culture was over 2500 years old.
I also learned just this week, that researchers in New Zealand have genetic evidence that the Maori polynesians came from China (but their evidence points to Taiwan). I had long believed they were from Southern China but mixed with the Phillipine natives & then journeyed into Polynesia.
The Cook Island Maoris tend to have slightly oriental eyes but that appears to be a recent historical development (visiting Chinese seamen). Not unlike how the Hawaian appearance is now impacted by the Japanese imported their in the 1700s.
Cheers Doug
|
Post #45,794
7/16/02 2:46:46 PM
7/16/02 2:50:34 PM
|
Well, if they didn't invade it...
would we know it to be within their sphere of influence? Unless you define "sphere of influence" so broadly as to divest it of practical meaning.
And if they do invade it, there's proof that it's within their sphere of influence. Unless you're willing to argue that invading a country doesn't influence that country in the least.
But never mind invading. They don't need to invade. they've got nukes.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Edited by marlowe
July 16, 2002, 02:50:34 PM EDT
|
Post #45,865
7/17/02 6:26:19 AM
|
Forget the term RED CHINA, why not try DARK AMERICA it is ..
more up-to-date and more accurately reflects how some countries see America and many of its actions around the world today.
We surely all know by now that US is the world's *only* superpower and when people in the US start implying or directly criticising a smaller weaker country of being beligerent (when we all plainly know US could swat them in short order) one has to question who is the aggressor.
This applies to the now demonised Saddam Hussien of Iraq as much as to the RED baiting remarks in the original post, about China.
I am one who is generally grateful that US won the cold war. US are my countries friends, but, that doesn't mean I have to like what I see as bullying or barefacedly beligerent acts against smaller weaker countries as a means of keeping them under control.
I posted this item elsewhere but will repeat it here -
"Late 1940s - after WWII British power begins to wane and America steps in. George Kennan, U.S. State Department stated in 1948," The US has about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.""
This above quote clearly and accurately outlines why Bush's administration is behaving as it is internationally.
Here is an interesting and seemily very fair perspective on some US actions in light of the reality that it *is* the world's only super power.
[link|http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-01zzq.html|China fears post cold war superpower USA]
Question I would ask is are their fears unjustified or very easy to understand. To truly answer this one needs the ability to wear the other persons shoes.
Cheers
Doug Marker
|
Post #45,912
7/17/02 4:42:17 PM
|
Believe the George Kennan screed is fully equivalent to
the, "cut off their air supply" M$ e-mail (re. the illegal, criminal leveraging of monopoly power against a competitor with a Superior product.. (which they admitted! they could only copy, feature by feature..))
Kennan's 1948! stark revelation demonstrates a full awareness at the highest scales of US Government: that we were [already] 'consuming' a vastly disproportionate share of the world's wealth, that we intended to continue or expand 'our share' ... and certainly suggested the lengths to which we Would Go - were Anyone to attempt to interfere with this (nothing less than) Imperialist direction.
No subsequent weasel-words can much rebut his baldfaced assertions: the record *since* is fully consistent with that having been our aim. Or rebut the proposition that: it still is. Perhaps.. more rapacious than ever, despite the spin/truth ratio of 100:1 (?)
Hoist from Our Own Horse's Mouth\ufffd.
(No wonder Billy Gates is still a Murican Hero; he exemplifies *US* !! and... not to worry pretty-little heads that his / our behaviour is counter to those lip-service Principles we say... "we want to spread around the planet because they are all undistilled Goodness - by inspection..")
{sheesh}
Ashton
The Answer is: No! indeed we have no 'shame', just lust for $/power like every previous Empire. Tawdry. Ultimately catastrophic, unless 'we' grow up reeel fast, via some next traumatic event.
|
