Re. the sale of “Backfire” bombers to China, these stories bring to mind the near-future military thriller "Dragon Strike" (link to plot synopsis not allowed; use Google) by Humphrey Hawksley and Simon Holberton (1997), now, sadly, out of print. The authors tell one story of how China's economic power could translate into military dominance throughout Asia. It was all too plausible then, and it has become more so as the Politburo's moves have become clearer over time.

Also re: China's military purchases -- While I substantially agree with the assessment of China's regional intentions, the tone of the article seems a bit alarmist regarding the actual capabilities they'd be acquiring. In effect, China is upgrading its air and naval forces from 1960s technology to 1980s. The US, meanwhile, has only expanded its Aegis capability over the intervening decades.

China's real problem in an invasion of Taiwan would be getting sufficient troop strength across the straits and supplying it once ashore. Even given that the distance involved is not enormous, such a buildup of troops and shipping couldn't easily be concealed, and the force would be terribly vulnerable before and during the campaign. While the relatively small size of the theater would allow the Chinese to concentrate their forces, it would allow the US and Taiwan to do the same.

I think a more likely purpose for advanced Chinese air-to-surface and submarine forces is a blockade of Taiwan, or even merely the threat of a blockade. It would be far more difficult to shepherd significant merchant shipping through such a cordon than for carrier battlegroups to protect themselves, and the threat of destroying Taiwan's economy might be all the leverage China needs to bring it's "province" back into the fold.

Well, I'm certainly in the camp of people who consider China to be our most serious long-term concern, but sereiously - is this news? That China's positioning itself to threaten Taiwan and body-block the US Navy while they're doing it? I can't think of anyone who'd be surprised by this...

And while we're on the subject, are you seriously using Adam Yoshida as a "news" source? I followed that link, and then checked out his main page. On the 26th, he's got one of the more frighteninglyinsane and hate-filled tracts I've yet seen on terrorism. Here's a quote:
"What I propose is this: in addition to using force to bring armed Islamists to heel, we should also commence the use of force against unarmed Islamists as well. Those who spread enemy propaganda, those who participate in the financing of the enemy, and those who choose to stand in proximity to the enemy are valid and legitimate targets of war. Those who retail or purchase pro-Islamist materials are legitimate targets of war. Those who donate money to terrorist groups, even to their ostensibly humanitarian or political wings, are legitimate targets as well."

And another good one:
"Turn the tactics of the terrorists back against them."

Yes, he's seriously advocating turning the US into a terrorist state in order to combat terrorism. Think I'm exaggerating? Here's the very next few lines:
"My plan is simple: we should wage a brutal campaign of terror against the terrorists themselves.

The local Mosque is filled with Islamists and its preacher constantly calls for Jihad? Well, then it sounds like a promising target for a car bomb.

A newspaper prints anti-Americans lies and declares that fighting Americans in Iraq is an “Islamic duty”? It sounds like the editor is practically begging to be assassinated.

A little newspaper stand sells pro-Jihadist materials? An offense like that might not quite call for an assassination. But it would be worth it to burn the place down in the dead of the night.

A television station broadcasts a telethon for ‘martyrs’? It sounds to me like an improvised explosive device left at its gate might do some good. Same for the bank which handles the deposits."

After that, he gets even worse. No, really - he does! This guy makes Ann Coulter seem like a friggin' moderate!

I think it's safe to say that Adam Yoshida is a dangerously insane freakbag who should be kept as far away from any sort of power, authority, or influence as possible for the good of the entire human race.

legion:

Terrorism is only the spear-point of Jihad. It requires money, indoctrination and public support. Targeting the head-choppers' financial supporters, and the people who will teach more children to hate, doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

Colt:
You're correct, but there's an enormous difference between 'targeting' and assassination. If we find terror orgs' bank accounts? Yeah, freeze 'em and sieze'em. If the banks are turning a blind eye to it? Sieze them too and arrest their senior executives. Religious and educational institutions that cross the line from sermonizing to advocating & training violence lose their protections also.

But this guy is explicitly advocating unfocused violence - not shutting down the banks, but car-bombing them (which will, you might notice, only kill the poor schmucks who work there & live near there - won't touch the execs who make the decision to endorse the terror orgs in the first place). Kidnapping, torturing, and even publically executing random familiy members of suspects.

There are some hard-core bastards out there, like OBL and his inner circle, who just need to die for everyone else's safety. But using that solution against everyone who even looks at us funny - that's the attitude of a rabid animal.

...that's the attitude of a rabid animal

Absolutely. That's the whole point, and why it might work.

Ummm... leaving aside, for the moment, all the issues of moral equivalency, redefining terrorism as something only other people do, and the blatantly evil and indefensible concept of murdering innocent bystanders in an attempt to influence the (suspected) guilty, let's look at Yoshida's proposal from a strictly pragmatic POV...

In olden times, when a rabid dog wandered into town, the entire town didn't just pack up and run away. Nor did it leave out kibble in order to sate the beast and hope it would go away. No, they all banded together, friend and enemy alike, hunted down the dog, and killed it for the saftey of the entire town. Because an unreasoning rabid animal is a threat to everyone. I feel very strongly that if the US were to openly adopt that sort of policy - "Don't mess with me! I'm just crrrrrazy enough to do it!" - we will only succedd in uniting the rest of the world against us; economically at first, and then militarily. There are many far less risky (and insane) ways to defend our nation than simply killing everyone else.

Wow this guy is really worried about those vintage bombers that drop those obsolete missiles.

check this out
http://www.st.northropgrumman.com/capabilities/Content.cfm?ContentID=30

You can bet your last dollar these systems are going to go on more than one ship in the navy.

And I agree with you I do not think we need the rest of the world thinking that we could go postal on them at any moment.