Posted on 12/09/2004 2:07:54 PM PST by dandelion
While you're all trying the find the answer to no armor, could anyone explain why the regular army spends has a 6-month rotation in Iraq while guard units are sent with a minimum 18 month rotation?
While you're all trying the find the answer to no armor, could anyone explain why the regular army spends has a 6-month rotation in Iraq while guard units are sent with a minimum 18 month rotation?
Perhaps you can show me in your post #217 EXACTLY where you alluded to the thread-head story, eh?
As to the thread-head--the Pentagon writes its specifications, and some suppliers bid for the work.
Others don't. That's what we call competitive.
You will note, however, that the Pentagon is very careful NOT to select suppliers who utilize slave labor, FX-chicancery, or abdication of safety/environmental regulations to submit the 'lowest bid.'
That means that the Pentagon doesn't contract with Red China.
Maybe 25% of enlistment obligation?
Yes, apparently, unless you qualify it, it is.
Most competent economists agree with Adam Smith's EXCEPTION to Free Trade: National Defense. And while some libertarians say they also do, in fact, it is more often lip service. They never seem to see the connections between core industries and defense.
The slave is not getting rich either. And that is deliberate. The LAST thing these communist overlords want is for a REAL capitalist middle-class to take off. You are apparently unaware of the master here in this 'trade' relationship. It is the PRC/PLA.
Part right. Some stuff is too sensitive for general distribution. No reason to tip off the Chinese what counter-strategies we think might work, or just how aware we are of their manuevers. Regarding the open-source, declassified output of the William J. Casey Institute, you can find them published online, here.
"Perhaps you can show me in your post #217 EXACTLY where you alluded to the thread-head story, eh?"
I responded to the remarks quoted in my post.
"As to the thread-head--the Pentagon writes its specifications, and some suppliers bid for the work."
"Others don't. That's what we call competitive."
Not all Pentagon contracts are competitive. Most work going to government arsenals is not. This work is being done at Rock Island Arsenal, a government owned and operated facility. You continue to focus on the supplier of the steel and fail to recognize that this supplier says he can increase production by 22% if asked by the government. The government has not asked. Therefore the problem is at the government facility and is not the result of a shortage of steel or the result of our free trade policies.
"That means that the Pentagon doesn't contract with Red China."
Exactly, the government has not and will not contract with Red China for armor plate meaning any shortage of armor plate is not a result of our trade policies. Thank you very much for finally getting it. (and proving my point)
"EXCEPTION to Free Trade: National Defense."
We are talking armor plate here. Armor plate is defense. We do not contract the production of armor plate to China. Therefor any problem with the production of armor plate is not a result of our trade policies.
And you manifestly prove my point beyond doubt, when I observed about recognition of that free trade exception being required: And while some libertarians say they also do, in fact, it is more often lip service. They never seem to see the connections between core industries and defense.
This is not an isolated example. The steel shortfall is because of an overall steel industrial collapse that the globalists refuse to acknowledge. They are not the ones familiar with these industries, so they cavalierly wave their arms, and say, "they must be inefficient, or obsolete" and the Chinese are cheaper, hence more efficient. Shut em down! That includes the defense capacity. Without the industrial margin for error and surge capacity beyond minimal Xlinton-era defense orders, the steel armor capacity withered away. There is no industrial-infrastructure protection program in place. The Chinese are cherry-picking industries to be able to defeat us. And we have a bunch of idealogues unaware that these commercial transactions (conducted by PLA proxies) are not free trade.
Protected by what? Spitballs?!!
This guy gets a little bit of the big picture in his Fair Comment at Insight Magazine
Communist China Conducting Effective Economic War Plan
Posted Dec. 8, 2003
By Tom Adkins
Corporate profits are up 30 percent. Consumer confidence? Up 10 percent to 91.7, the highest since 2002. There have been 286,000 jobs added to the U.S. economy in three months. Exports are up. And after further review, third-quarter gross domestic product was up 8.2 percent. That's all good news because we need a strong economy to fight the war. No, not against terrorists, not against North Korea and not against France. We need a strong economy to defeat our new enemy - China. We've been at war for quite some time. Listen carefully, you can hear the rumble in the distance.
On Nov. 10, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that the United States unfairly raised tariffs on imported steel way back in March 2002. Predictably, pundits began jabbering about trade wars. But the real story is much deeper.
Three worldwide phenomena simultaneously have conspired to create a perfect economic storm: the fall of communism, the vulnerability of old Euro-socialism and unnatural market forces infiltrating established capitalist markets.
It began in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush unleashed our great economic weapon with massive tax cuts, outproducing the U.S.S.R. in a race for military supremacy. But that created an unexpected downside. A slew of socialist states such as Indonesia, India, China, Russia and Brazil moved toward market trade. Many had just constructed massive steel and textile mills to impress the world with the amazing righteousness of communism. When the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade begat the WTO, these countries ironically entered the brave new world of open markets with new, fairly efficient manufacturing facilities - and a dirt-cheap workforce.
The result has been a marketplace awash in mountains of unneeded steel and textiles at unthinkably low prices. Every armchair economist knows the paradox: On the one hand, an importing nation gets ridiculously low-priced goods; on the other hand, domestic businesses are lost to inexpensive foreign competition. The success or doom of an importer nation depends upon how strong its economy is and whether the exporter nation is a reciprocal market for exports.
So how did the world's economy cope? The European Union (EU) was formed ostensibly to rival the United States. Instead, the EU found itself staving off cheap Chinese imports. While they have dropped local barriers, EU nations are burdened with powerful unions and sluggish socialism wrapped in a high-tax environment. In fact, Ireland was threatened for cutting taxes. Meanwhile, old capitalist nations that rely on normal growth such as South Korea, Japan and the United States got swamped in a sea of low-price competition.
That may have been the end of it. But there is further intrigue. When China joined the WTO at the end of 2001, it had to fill a series of requirements during the next decade: "most-favored-nation" status, national treatment, quantitative restrictions and transparency. In plain English? Open your markets and play fair.
Given China's history, the WTO allowed nations to claim a number of specific "safeguards," or temporary tariffs, in case China misbehaved. The WTO also offers general safeguards to help nations absorb the shock of world markets flooded with cheaper products. As anyone can tell you, 700 million Chinese workers averaging $67 a week can have a devastating effect on your local knitting mill.
Here's where it gets nasty. First, China is conveniently late in fulfilling WTO policy targets, particularly opening markets to imports. But most important, China has kept its currency, the yuan, "pegged" at 8.28 to the U.S. dollar since 1994. So why is that a big deal? Because normally currency is a tradable commodity, with value against other currencies determined by the relationship of each nation's economic strengths. But by pegging the yuan at a specific ratio to the dollar, Chinese goods are attractive regardless of policies or markets. The yuan is always cheaper. Those great quality shirts for $6? Made in China.
Don't forget to add in China's gargantuan product-counterfeiting market and that pesky prison-labor thing. It's obvious: China is conducting economic warfare. These policies don't happen by accident. China is trying to eliminate our industries and make us totally dependent on Chinese imports. Then one day we'll wake up to higher-priced steel, higher-priced textiles, higher-priced televisions and no industrial base. And we'll be helpless to do anything about it. Sound familiar? Think Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, circa 1979.
China's Sun Tzu philosophy is easy to spot. China certainly deduced that the WTO essentially is an economic United Nations and gauged its strategy and timing accordingly. But China also must assume that, as in Iraq, President Bush is unwilling to surrender U.S. economic security to sniveling bureaucrats who refuse to play fair. Just this week, in the face of WTO sanctions, he enacted safeguards against Chinese TV imports. Meanwhile, WTO nations must consider consequences of crossing paths with the two largest economies in the world.
Fortunately, Bush is steeped in American philosophy. When confronting an enemy, he pulls out the whuppin' stick. If a polite discussion doesn't work, splinters fly. Bush is gambling that his tough stand will lose less jobs than the low-rate, low-inflation-inspired economic rebound will create, and the world will stay out of the economic war zone. And that, folks, is a story worth watching.
Tom Adkins publishes CommonConservative.com and hosts On Fire with Tom Adkins on the Radio Free Republic network.
Chinese don't eat corn. They feed it to animals. They do eat wheat (and they import 10% of their consumption), and they eat rice (and they import a couple percent of that).
...its economy is far more robust than most arm-chair tacticians are really appreciating, as they now approach having the largest ship-building complex. And another major weakness.
Yawn. Wake me when China finds an ability to project power across the Taiwan Straight. They can barely control their own country (Tibet, Sinkiang).
The Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula is not an American Pond.
Name one Arab state that could even consider dictating terms to us there.
Can you name a pipeline that goes over 10,000 feet? China's eastern and southern border is the Himalaya's, Pamir's, Tien Shan, and Altai mountains, which are in the 10,000-20,000 foot range.
2. China has huge reserves of coal. Coal can be liquified and as oil becomes more expensive this can become viable option.
The rate at which China is using its coal will burn out these reserves in around 85 years. The US has 215% of China's reserves but has 30% less production.
China can make her agriculture more efficient (even Japan with much higher density of population can produce most of Japan's grain). In northern China there are large tracks of land suitable for the wheat cultivation.
Northern China is home to the rapidly expanding Gobi desert.
"This is not an isolated example. The steel shortfall is because of an overall steel industrial collapse that the globalists refuse to acknowledge."
And you refuse to acknoledge that this is not a steel shortage problem. The supplier says he can increase production by 22% but the government has not asked for any additional supply. This is a management problem at at government facility staffed by government workers.
"Protected by what? Spitballs?!!"
Government employees are the most protected part of our industrial base. Once again, the supplier can provide more steel if the government employees at the government arsenal would only ask. They have not. This is a perfect example of what happens when your protectionist theories are applied. Our troops need the armor but your protected industry won't respond.
Correct me if my thinking is wrong, but Humvees are a replacement for jeeps that were used for transportation. They were not meant to be a replacement for tanks. No amount of armor will protect from large land mines.
This is a different kind of war, and IMHO it requires a different kind of equipment to fight it.
You wouldn't wanna bet against PRChina on the Taiwan question. That's a fool's bet.
As to Tibet, name one person that cares except the Dalai Lama.
Wow. You found ONE mill/supplier that can produce the quivalent of 550 armored HMVs/day.
The point, DD, is that there should be MORE than one in the US--and there might well be except for the malevolent neglect of defense resources begun by Clinton--still not exactly "cured" by GWB.
Agree - the Humvee was a replacement for the Jeep of yore. While I am not an engineer, one has to question what effect all that armor has on the Humvee.
Added weight changes the dynnamics - slower, more cumbersome to operate, strain on the suspension system and probably takes more fuel to operate.
The Humvee seems to have become a lightweight Bradley. It is not the right equipment for the job for sure.
Wake up sleepy head. It's called the PLA. They are deploying their maritime logistical capability in broad daylight. The tactical craft are being done in secret. And as far as "projecting" power...what do you think those 700 missiles they have aimed at Taiwan do...just sit around looking scary?
They can barely control their own country (Tibet, Sinkiang).
Tibet is hardly chinese, its an alien occupation. As far not being under control...Tell that to the Tibetans. They seem to feel rather controlled. Same with the mongolians.
Sorry, Charlie, but this supplier of the steel plate is not a "protected" industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.