Two Chilling Developments Suggest Asia May Be One Step Away From War

China and Japan, along with North and South Korean troops at the DMZ, appear one step away from armed combat and tensions don't look likely to ease any time soon.

New developments within both regions illustrate how close to open combat the four countries are, and how quickly one incident could expand to war among very powerful nations.

Tokyo reported two January events where Chinese naval vessels targeted its East China Sea forces with fire-control radar. This specific type of radar is used almost exclusively to assist guided weapons systems in their flight toward a target. It's an unmistakable action that can be the first step to open combat, and was taken seriously enough by the Japanese captain to prompt a combat alert aboard his vessel.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded to the allegations by saying it hadn't heard about the engagements until news of the events appeared on international news. It has since said that the event didn't happen and is a total Japanese fabrication. Whether it's true or not China is using Japan's claim to prove Tokyo is preparing for war.

If Chinese ships did engage their fire-control radar, it may be in Beijing's interest to deny it because either it approved the maneuver, or the ship's captains acted independently. Both scenarios offer a long list of concerns that would be easiest for China to address if avoided entirely.

Japan continues pressing the issue and yesterday announced that the use of fire-control radar against its ships is an "act of force" and a direct UN charter violation."

U.S. Secretary of Defense Panetta is pleading for caution and says, "the situation could ultimately get out of hand."

Reference 1:

In the US, it takes about 30 hours total, for the body, engine, transmission, assembly, paint, etc. doesn't include things like outsourced parts and mining the ore (or recycling old cars). the labor costs from $55-$70 per hour including benefits so about $2100 per car, or roughly 8% the cost of the average car. doesn't sound that high until you compare the Tata Nano, which costs $2500 total. Labor costs are higher at companies with older presences, because they tend to have more expensive health care, larger families, and because the pensions become more expensive over time. national health care and pensions would make doing business a lot easier. Ford and GM pay ~$70 and Toyota pays ~$55 [Source(s) unknown]. $70/hr sounds like a ton of money, but starting wage for laborers is only about $14/hr, which is barely enough to pay the bills in the US. The top earners make $29/hr. Health care and pensions cost equivalent of about $15/hr, vacation time, overtime, sick leave are the equivalent of roughly $10 per hour. Benefits for retirees are roughly $15/hr (this isn't really wages by most definitions but ends up in all the reports). Maybe its time for the US government to step up and provide reasonable health care for working and retired people who pay taxes all their lives?

Reference 2: The total labor cost of a new vehicle produced in the United States is about $2,400 which includes direct, indirect and salaried labor for engines, stamping and assembly at the automakers’ plants. This represents 8.4 percent of the typical $28,4513 price of a new vehicle in 2006. The vast majority of the costs of producing a vehicle and transporting it to a dealership and preparing it for sale – including design, engineering, marketing, raw materials, executive compensation and other costs – are not related to direct or indirect manufacturing labor.

Ok, your first reference is from some anonymous internet answering service. Where do they get their information? It sounds like they get their information from your second reference.

Your second reference is from the UAW, probably written by a UAW "economist". What a surprise! Don't you think an unbiased observer would conclude that this "source" could be seen as somewhat self-serving?

Sorry, you have done nothing to underpin your arguments by citing these "sources". In fact, considering your tone and your methods, you sound more and more like a union activist. I've met your type before. Are you new to this "rational argument supported by facts" thingy?

Get back to me when you have something solid to support your argument. Try sticking to the facts from unbiased sources and hold the sarcasm and ad hominem attacks that, I'm sure, are your next steps.

Get back to me when you have something solid to support your argument.

Hey Canuk you too busy to do any research? I will not be your research bitch. I say labor is 8% so prove me wrong or STFU.

So what do you IMAGINE the per labor vehicle labor cost is? Do you have a figure to pull out of your arse?

Wow, like I said sarcasm AND ad hominem attacks. A double header. Congratulations!

Hey, you came up with the initial statements, then you tried to back them up with union propaganda. Now you use sarcasm and ad hominem attacks, as if to make your point.

Buddy, prove your statements without using union propaganda or go home. They are YOUR STATEMENTS. It's your argument. In fact, don't bother, if I want sarcasm, ad hominem attacks and irrationality I'll call my ex wife.

Here is a study on manufacturing costs for hybrid/electric vehicles. Now I am assuming the labor costs are similar to conventional vehicles.

Here is the link. Click here.

Look at Table 2 Price/Cost Breakdown Based on Borroni-Bird Presentation

They have labor per vehicle at 6.5%. LOL I was too high!!!

Do some research it is fun! You should try it sometime.

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.