Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

So China is now selling ingeniously developed combat aircraft, marketed to be even more superior than the Su-27's.

After decades of importing and reverse-engineering Russian arms, China has reached a tipping point: It now can produce many of its own advanced weapons—including high-tech fighter jets like the Su-27—and is on the verge of building an aircraft carrier.

Not only have Chinese engineers cloned the prized Su-27's avionics and radar but they are fitting it with the last piece in the technological puzzle, a Chinese jet engine.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... %3Darticle

Which leads me to my second question, on one hand armies are engaging in ferocious war drills while on the hand superior transfer of technology still prevails.
For instance China recently deployed High speed trains capable of speeds in excess of 300km/h. The technology developed in countries like Germany, France and Japan.
My question is, should transfer of technology between countries exist? What defines terms of trade and what restricts terms of trade? Can countries be self-sufficient and yet prosper? Globalization and trade was supposed to make the world a better place, yet countries still spending unprecedented amounts propping up their respective militaries.

It is hard to see how anyone will stop China being number one in pretty much any field it wants to be.

Tech transfer restrictions will only slow down the rise of the world's natural super-powers.

I used to argue that China would be number one in less than 50 years (saying this since the 90's) - I've since revised this prediction down - I think it will take place well within the next 20 and perhaps even this decade.

Propping up the military is a tried and tested way to get and remain at the top of the global economic food chain. It applied to Athens and Sparta, and certainly applied to the Brits and the US.

The question that some historians are asking is - will the transfer of the baton be as peaceful as the transfer between the UK and USA in the 20th century, or will it be characterised by wars - which historically has been the usual course of events.

My money is on wars - but I'm hoping fervently I'm wrong!


I'm currently reading a couple of books which are somewhat related:
"Why the West Rules - For Now" by Ian Morris,
"Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy" - Joseph Stiglitz

I also recommend Stiglitz's earlier book - 'Making globalization work'

Almost finished Freefall - not much new there for those who have followed the financial crisis - but great to see it compiled in the way Stiglitz has, and I agree with his way of looking at events and economics in general.

About half-way through Morris' book - a must for those interested in history and relating it to current events. See the reviews - I'll post more on it after I've finished it.

Cheers,
Shafique

I've been on forums where there are quite a few US and UK military men. The egg headed ness is unbelievable and they are so brain washed with their own hyberbole you wouldn't believe it.

They don't consider the Russians or the Chinese to be any threats because of their inferior quality of weapons, arguing they only look good on paper and would fail in real life.

You'd be hard pressed to find any N.American military type to admit that the Sukhoi PAK FA is a superior aircraft than the tremendously delayed F 35

A bit from the 'Decline of American Empire' thread speaks to the hubris of declining empires - in line with the state of denial of some US military types you talk about:

Counterintuitively, as their power wanes, empires often plunge into ill-advised military misadventures. This phenomenon is known among historians of empire as “micro-militarism” and seems to involve psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the sting of retreat or defeat by occupying new territories, however briefly and catastrophically. These operations, irrational even from an imperial point of view, often yield hemorrhaging expenditures or humiliating defeats that only accelerate the loss of power.

Embattled empires through the ages suffer an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle. In 413 BCE, a weakened Athens sent 200 ships to be slaughtered in Sicily. In 1921, a dying imperial Spain dispatched 20,000 soldiers to be massacred by Berber guerrillas in Morocco. In 1956, a fading British Empire destroyed its prestige by attacking Suez. And in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. occupied Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. With the hubris that marks empires over the millennia, Washington has increased its troops in Afghanistan to 100,000, expanded the war into Pakistan, and extended its commitment to 2014 and beyond, courting disasters large and small in this guerilla-infested, nuclear-armed graveyard of empires.

Cheers,
Shafique

What a poorly thought out paragraph you decided to quote.

Unless your intention was to highlight the author's weak argument.

But of course not. Perhaps you'll be quoting Robert Fisk to tell us all how the US armed Iraq with conventional and chemical weapons?

shafique wrote:A bit from the 'Decline of American Empire' thread speaks to the hubris of declining empires - in line with the state of denial of some US military types you talk about:
Cheers,
Shafique

Wishful thinking shafique but not going to happen in your life time

Perhaps - let's see.

You're not being ironic and demonstrating the denial referred to in the quote are you, by any chance? Just checking.

If you aren't - perhaps you may be interested in buying some good deals on property in Florida - they are very good value for money. Oh, and I can let you have London Bridge at a very good price too - and even some great opportunities in Dubai too, for good measure.

Cheers,
Shafique

Chinese made supersonic aircraft , I say the engines malfunction within a year, and the joystick in the cockpit comes off in 6 months