Worst of all from my point of view is the alarmist attitude towards China that the article betrays.

the most ignorant blog I've come across- minoritesforwhiteamerica.org

Let's get it off the net by emailing the web host provider.

It's a little late in the day to be focusing on countering a "rising" China . They virtually own us financially. Their military strength is tenfold ours. Their nuclear capabilities are, if not already superior, at least as proficent and deadly as ours. China has little to nothing to fear from the US. We on the other hand have much to be concerned where they are concerned.
Yeah, I know this probably puts me squarely in the alarmist camp. But while we're mired down in Iraq, China is sitting back watching us deplete our resources and our international good will. We can't even realistically deal with N. Korea, because common sense tells us, China will only sit back and watch for so long.
At some point the US is going to have to realize and accept we are NOT the only super-power on this third rock from the sun. A little humble pie might be in order here.

"Their military strength is tenfold ours. Their nuclear capabilities are, if not already superior, at least as proficent and deadly as ours."

splutters and laughs

You are joking, right? I mean I'm practically a Sinophile compared to some people on the hawkish end of the 'sphere, but that's patent nonsense. The US could mop the floor with them militarily at any time and they know it -- manpower is not much good when one side is technologically ahead by 30 years. Which is not to say that would be a good thing; it would be utterly disastrous for both sides and the worst thing that could happen geopolitically. But it would hurt them a lot more than it would hurt the US.

I'm with Dave Schuler. Inconsistencies in the NYT is par for the course, I'm far more worried about the China alarmism. But then, I guess that's also par for the course... unfortunately.

Wanda, your claims simply are not true. Don't confuse large masses of soldiers with military power. That's the lesson of the two wars against Iraq - that our military is so advanced qualitatively that quantitative comparisons are meaningless. Obviously we would be unable to occupy China, but defeat its military in a conflict along its periphery is well within our capabilities. China's forces are at their greatest disadvantage in key multipliers like naval forces and air forces.

And while China is attempting to close the technological gap, they are decades away from succeeding.

I'm primarily concerned about China's currency. There's a day of reckoning ahead that might make the Thai Bhat crisis look like child's play. The fallout from a potential devaluation could affect the global economy quite severely; and it might rouse the restless within China.

Off hand, I take notice of any country that sports over a billion souls. It's prudent.

I guess the NYT has the right to be self-contradicting. I know a lot of blogs, papers, and people who do it routinely. Probably myself included.

Marcus Cicero, the key point I've been trying to make in my series on China is that China's internal problems are enormous just as China itself is enormous. The world has more to fear from internal strife in China than from aggression or malice.

I posted a link the other day over on my blog that suggested that 200 million Chinese were suffering from occupational diseases. Million.

And yet the misplaced alarmism persists. I had an interesting dialogue over on my blog a little while ago with a sailor serving with the Pacific fleet who was absolutely convinced that there was a secret fleet of Chinese submarines that was a grave danger to the U. S. vessels serving in the area. To the best of my knowledge China has fewer submarines than it did a decade ago.

"Their military strength is tenfold ours. Their nuclear capabilities are, if not already superior, at least as proficent and deadly as ours."

[Where do people get this stuff?]

I'm not going to write the entire encyclopedia on this one.

One of the problems that China has is the vulnerability of its Aifields - they're fixed and easily targeted depending on the nature of the units involved.

As for our "Airfields"? They're Mobile. They're Self-contained. They're High-Endurance. They're on the Net. AND...

"We live in the world of Radar, not Visual sight; Think of invisible waves, not visible light."

...yes, our "Airfields" are Stealthy. There are two ways to achieve Stealth on the open Seas:

1)Stay beneath it - By virtue of being Underwater.

2)Stay beneath it - By virtue of being over the Horizon.*

The South China Seas are expansive, and hitting a Carrier or even an entire Battle Group** here is like blindly firing a bullet into a parking lot and hoping it'll hit a dime. It also means a HUGE breadth for the Battle Group, or a even single DDG/CG/SSGN on independent ops***, to demolish the Chinese Airfields, and anything else, at Will.

This is one (actually, Many) of the failings that people ignorantly dismiss when they harp and eulogize the Sunburn. It's a nice bullet, I grant you, but it has MAJOR problems. In addition, a bullet is a bullet. It can be PFM Silver for all I care. The Chinese will need a good gun (launching platform, a SURVIVABLE one), good sights (search/track radar), a proficient cowboy (Training), a good network ("Whoops, where is the OK Corral?"), among a ton of things...

Ergo, if the Chinese are going to hit a CVBG, it's going to take a lot more than a Magic Bullet (and they know it).

And our Cruise missiles? IMHO, you wouldn't even have to use DTOT or STOT on the same point of impact. The cruise missiles are stealthy too: they hug the terrain (major background noise), their flight profiles and patterns are elegant (or Nasty depending on your point of view), they betray minimal warning after clearing the target's horizon (virtually none), among other things...

A Launched Tomahawk out of the box is as good as a Hit.****

And one of the biggest reasons it'll Hit, vice the Sunburn hitting us? We already know where China's Airfields are, and they can't hide.*^

Once their air cover has been rolled back/peeled away/obliterated, the Chinese are Toast (with butter on top). Their invasion force for Taiwan will be exposed to a rain of fire. Their economy and their military will be dissected with impunity on land and at sea. The isolated limbs won't even be able to reach for China's neck as we choke off their air supply. In fact, the writing is on the wall long before the Chinese PLA even THINKS about hitting a US Carrier or Taiwan or Japan or anyone else.

In this scenario, China has only one recourse: Nukes, and even if they have any left to launch, they know they'll still lose (But hey, they'll save some Face). Cold comfort.

That's the reality*^^

Faced with this, China's only option is to bluster [arrogantly] and provoke incidents. They serve to let off steam and save Face in the hopes that no one will notice their impotence and shake with fear (Same goes for the Norks).

But another facet is that they also test the will of the nations opposing China's Axis. Because that's really the only way for China to win: for the US to voluntarily cede the region. The Chinese don't choreograph these incidents as much as they take opportunistic potshots when given the chance.*^^^

A weak-will President and a China desperate/foolish enough to take risks would be a bad combination.

"Inconsistencies in the NYT is par for the course, I'm far more worried about the China alarmism."

The NYT isn't being alarmist about China, they're being alarmist about the US. I'd like to ascribe some clever motive for the MSM's rants, but after so many browbeatings, I've come to one conclusion:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

*Yes, there are more ways to achieve stealth for those in the military who want to nit-pick. KISS.

**Yes, I know they changed the name, but it's a misnomer as far as I'm concerned, and there is widespread confusion in the Navy about the name's application. Besides, calling it a CVBG is a habit for me, so Ha!

***I'm well aware that "Independent ops" may no longer exist in today's USN as it was previously applied.

****Yes, a Tomahawk can be shot down, but realistically....I worry more about Michael Moore running the marathon than I worry about downed Tomahawks. And the BGs in PacFleet are burdened with too many Tomahawks anyway.

*^And I don't want to hear about James Bondian secret, underground Airfields with complements of Wowwy Jet Aircraft. There are reasons why this fantasy is just that, and, no, I don't want to explain the idiocy of this one.

*^^I said KISS! I'm having "be concise" problems as it is.

*^^^Their collision with the P-3 was an accident. Their manipulation afterwards was less so.

*^*Is this a word?

"Does the NYT Editorial Board read the NYT?"

The available evidence is that they do not, probably because they know how unreliable it is. There is also evidence that they don't read their own output as their recent flip-flop on Fillibusters indicates.

The real question is why any one other than their mothers cares what they think.

Dave Schuler said:

"And yet the misplaced alarmism persists. I had an interesting dialogue over on my blog a little while ago with a sailor serving with the Pacific fleet who was absolutely convinced that there was a secret fleet of Chinese submarines that was a grave danger to the U. S. vessels serving in the area. To the best of my knowledge China has fewer submarines than it did a decade ago."

What Rank/Rate/Positional authority/Command is your sailor in? Do you know?

Not a clue. I didn't pry.

I didn't think he did... I wouldn't have either (in an open forum).

Just fishing...

If you could link the conversation, I'd be interested. Sorry, I'm lazy - and I'm not thrilled about searching the whole of a weblog in a vain attempt to find it.

Cheers.