Senior Chinese Military Officers Join Iran In Delivering "Punch" To U.S., Propose Selling Treasuries As Arms Sales Punishment
And you were worried about Iran. China's People Liberation Army has come out and openly said that the nuclear option, i.e., selling US Treasuries, is now on the table and should be exercised as "punishment" for U.S.' arms sales to Taiwan. China undoubtedly realizes that this is a prime example of sado-masochism as the resultant plunge in Treasuries that would follow would hurt the US certainly, but also have a "mild to quite mild" impact on China's $700 (and likely much greater) UST holdings. Game theory 101 just got interesting.
From Reuters:
Senior Chinese
military officers have proposed that their country boost defense
spending, adjust PLA deployments, and possibly sell some U.S. bonds to
punish Washington for its latest round of arms sales to Taiwan. The calls for broad retaliation over the
planned U.S. weapons sales to the disputed island came from officers at
China's National Defence University and Academy of Military Sciences, interviewed by Outlook Weekly, a Chinese-language magazine published by
the official Xinhua news agency. The
interviews with Major Generals Zhu Chenghu and Luo Yuan and Senior
Colonel Ke Chunqiao appeared in the issue published on Monday. The
People's Liberation Army (PLA) plays no role in setting policy for
China's foreign exchange holdings. Officials in charge of that area
have given no sign of any moves to sell U.S. Treasury bonds over the
weapons sales, a move that could alarm markets and damage the value of
China's own holdings. While far
from representing fixed government policy, the open demands for
retaliation by the PLA officers underscored the domestic pressures on
Beijing to deliver on its threats to punish the Obama administration
over the arms sales. "Our
retaliation should not be restricted to merely military matters, and we
should adopt a strategic package of counter-punches covering politics,
military affairs, diplomacy and economics to treat both the symptoms
and root cause of this disease," said Luo Yuan, a researcher at the
Academy of Military Sciences. Not only that, but China is now openly escalating vis-a-vis Taiwan. Chinese has blasted the United States over
the planned $6.4 billion arms package for Taiwan unveiled in late
January, saying it will sanction U.S. firms that sell weapons to the
self-ruled island that Beijing considers a breakaway province of China. China
is likely to unveil its official military budget for 2010 next month,
when the Communist Party-controlled national parliament meets for its
annual session. The PLA officers suggested that budget should mirror China's ire toward Washington. "Clearly propose that due to the threat in the Taiwan Sea, we are increasing military spending," said Luo. Last
year, the government set the official military budget at 480.7 billion
yuan ($70.4 billion), a 14.9 percent rise on the one in 2008,
continuing a nearly unbroken succession of double-digit increases over
more than two decades. Next question: will China follow through on the increasingly populist sentiment to hurt the U.S. If the U.S. is any indication of the strength of populist anger, now may be a good time to take some "profit", or book the loss as the case may be, in that 30 Year position.
(9 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:54
#223788
"Game Theory 101 just got interesting!" What an understatement.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:11
#224116
China already supplyies arms to the Taliban via Pakistan. They are also behind the N.Korean and Pakistani nuclear and missile programs, and supply missile technology to the Iranians. Add to this the Chinese support to assorted warlords in Somalia, etc. I fail to see what is new (other than some rhetoric).
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 18:17
#224188
Damn! So China is a wannabe US. The US created and supplied arms to the Taliban via Pakistan, helped the North Koreans and Pakistanis get nukes and sell weapons to the Iranians. Add to this the US support to assorted warlords in Somalia. What's next? Are the Chinese going to invade Afghanistan and then pay the Taliban not to attack their supply lines?
All the governments are the same... BAD. Erase the state... all of them.
Soory if the links don't go through.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 04:46
#224674
Yes, this is absolutely correct, China is selling arms to the Taliban. Correct.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 08:51
#224752
The USA supplied arms to the Taliban to fight Russia years ago. This is a fact. And your point being ????
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 15:01
#225385
The point being that the US didn't control the Taliban as it had hoped it did, it was a grave strategic blunder for the US. Another post-ww2 military conflict failing for the US among many others on the list.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 00:34
#224572
So, if China wants to sell, maybe Ben could buy, say at a 90% discount. China ought to be a little bit nicer to its last best customer. Europe is telling them to take their crap and F**k Off.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 15:00
#225377
And yet both the US and the EU are on the verge of having sovereign debt crises. Not China on the other hand. They are used to third world living standards, whereas the west has been spoiled to live in first world luxury via ponzi schemes. The outlook for the west is looking quite grim.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:55
#223791
The opening move has been made - it is only a matter of time before the Pawns exchange blows.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:16
#223860
The game has been on for a long time. The first nuclear option was the US bombing it's own citizens on September 11, 2001 in order to secure the world's last remaining oil reserves in the middle east.
If you think I'm the tin foil hat type then you need to watch the video of building 7 a few more times.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:28
#223896
I do not discount that possibility Windemup , I was just using some dramatic license.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:37
#223924
And people call me tin foil hat -you're wrapped in the shit!
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:44
#224152
yeah well watch this movie and lets see if you call him/her a tin foil again
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501#
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 18:30
#224203
I have always wondered why Northwood has not gotten more attention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods#
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:51
#224294
too many people on Rt 27 saw it happen live.
They all cannot be CIA plants.
As for WTC7, yeah, they probably pulled it. Skyscrapers don't collapse from fires.
And, there was never an explanation, only lies. The US gov't is either incompetent or in on shit
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:23
#224324
for those who like their tinfoil not so loose:
ZERO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:57
#224298
The only ones wearing tin foil are the ones who think 9/11 was actually Bin Laden and 19 Saudi clowns. The real conspiracy is the story "THEY" sold the profoundly ignorant and deeply gullible SCAMerican public.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:13
#224000
Oh look, a truther!
*sigh* they are everywhere, like cockroaches.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:22
#224023
I hope your pay is worth your conscience.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:52
#224159
Whatever you do, do not touch their ears or take their "beans and franks" away from a truther. They might slap you or attack you.
*sigh* is right....
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:21
#224252
Yo. What gives? Your time is better spent finishing your blovel. Thousands are getting ready to slap you:
http://johngaltfla.com/blog3/2010/01/28/
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:06
#224305
Stupid flu. I'm back, cleaning up several chapters now...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 21:32
#224380
Your imagination is very keen. I very much look forward to more.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 22:22
#224432
Watch the Aaron Russo interview concerning his relationship with Nicholas Rockefeller.
Those who throw mud at truthers haven't done much investigating. Start with the site Physics911, then
review Pilots for Truth, especially the analysis of flight telemetry data related to the Pentagon. View eyewitness interviews that desccribe a completely different event then the "Official Story".
If you believe the "Official Story", you are absurdly
naive. Have you looked at any data whatsoever?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 22:46
#224462
Have no fear. I won't touch your ears nor eat your beans and franks. But I will look at your sister's ass if she looks like Cameron Diaz.-:)
on Mon, 02/22/2010 - 12:40
#225040
On behalf of the 3,000+ innocent victims of Dick Cheney and his cohorts and the innocent Iraqui citizens who were bombed mercilessly, thankyou Anon for speaking up.
The turds who want to further the hatrid are responsible for the economic collapse facing the USA today.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 05:41
#224690
better to be a "truther" than a lier
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:27
#224012
Windemup,
A substantial portion of the American people know (at a subconscious level) 9/11 was an Orwellian false flag attack, but continue (at a conscious level) to pretend otherwise. As an example notice the use of "truther" in a derogatory manner. The term is both thrown out as an insult and an acknowledgement of subconscious agreement. A person who charts their course without regard for truth will be no more successful than a pilot who flys a plane without regard for the laws of physics.
One has to presume that at the government leadership level around the world 9/11 is correctly understood. This includes recognizing that 9/11 is mark of substantial weakness on the part of the US government.
www.ae911truth.org
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:36
#224059
Go away, truther. You discredit the blog.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:58
#224097
Nobody asked what you think...
It isn't your place to shoo anybody away from here.
Go watch the videos as suggested -- the reptilian part of your brain might actually grasp it if you pay attention.
But I know it is hard to concentrate when you're busy sniping little Television-inspired labels at folks you don't agree with.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:23
#224130
what aspect of your extensive research on the subject do you disagree with.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:47
#224080
RE: by strike for retu...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:27
#224012
Response:
Actually, emphatically, no. No 'they' do not believe, even at a subconscious level, that "9/11 was an Orwellian false flag attack".
Nice blanket statement with Zero evidence supporting it - seems to be a theme for 'Truthers'.
FYI 'Zero' also describes the percentage of Engineers/Architects that have signed that petition.
Petition Supporters as a Percent of ALL Architects and Engineers: ZERO, point, ZERO, ZERO, (wait for it...) ZERO, FIVE, TWO PERCENT (0.000523%).
Or, another way, the percentage of professionals supporting this insane concept is roughly TWO THOUSAND times closer to ZERO than it is to being a mere ONE PERCENT.
Engineers (Active) 1,600,000
Engineers (Retired) 200,000
Architects (Active) 150,000
Architects (Retired) 15,000
Total Population (Domestic): 1,965,000
Signed Petition: 1,028
I could include international E/A too, which are allowed to sign the petition, but you get the point.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:37
#224250
Talk to intelligent Americans who profess to agree with the MSM 9/11 myth ("a bunch of bored Saudi teenagers outwit the American military and force a peace-loving people to start two wars") about the facts of 9/11, and you will see fear in their eyes and understand their conscious refusal to acknowledge reality.
It may be the conflict between the subconscious and conscious of those denying reality that causes them to lash out against those who speak for the truth. It would also explain why their attacks tend to be emotional rather than logical. Your counter argument at least does have a logical appeal. However, in response, I will ask you...
How many people in Nazi Germany signed a petition calling for the end of Auschwitz?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 18:41
#224212
9/11 has become an American enigma. For many, 9/11 remains a puzzling, inexplicable, phenomenon that defies understanding in its complexities and misinformation. Most people doubt the full truth of the 9/11 Commission’s report, but are unable to accept that people inside the government could be so evil as to allow the deaths of 3000 Americans.
In a study published in the journal Sociological Inquiry, sociologists from four major research institutions focused on one of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election: the strength and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The study calls such unsubstantiated beliefs "a serious challenge to democratic theory and practice" and considers how and why so many people linked Hussein to 9/11. Co-author Steven Hoffman, Ph.D., from University at Buffalo, says, "Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.
The research concludes that people deeply hold on to their beliefs, and that they form an emotional attachment that gets wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality—irrespective of the facts of the matter. So given that many people in the US believe that we are the world’s best democracy it is likely that many will tend to seek self-serving justifications for wars and American misadventures and to ignore contradictory information. Therefore, it is at present cogitatively unlikely for many people to even consider that 9/11 was an inside job, or that our government allowed 9/11 to happen.
People can and do change their minds, but this often only happens with repeated continuing factual information being made available from multiple sources. Glen Beck said on national television that 9/11 Truthers were happy about the killing at the Holocaust museum and labeled us hate mongers. Beck’s statement, while completely without factual merit, reinforces emotional misinformation held by many people. These lies make it even more difficult for 9/11 truth seekers to effectively outline the realities .
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:31
#224263
+1 Very well put.
The detractors, if not paid internet trolls, have personal issues beyond our ability to alleviate: they don't seek the truth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:35
#224274
+2
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 21:31
#224378
JUNK THIS POST IF YOU THINK THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION IS INCOMPLETE
on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 21:58
#271123
think to know.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 21:55
#224399
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/president-bush-billboard-9785238
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 23:09
#224487
I'd don't firmly hold to 9/11 truther version of events but, as a construction person, see no evidence that definitely refutes my, and most others, intuitive sense that the buildings looked like controlled demolition, and I do see plenty of evidence that seems confirm this interpretation.
What is strange to me, is how quickly people reject the idea, not on its lack of merits or technical incorrectness but rather simply because it seems so far-fetched to them.
A relative asked me: why would people be so crazy to think W, or some other US person would do such a thing, I asked him, a hard core Repub, if thought Bill or Hill Clinton would do something like that, he paused and said, yes, maybe he could be persuaded, if there was evidence..so I asked him, had he investigated the evidence of truther claims, he said "no"....so its just the outlandishness of the claims that make them reject, not the evidence for or against. I think its hard to get truthful, rock solid info on this, but there is certainly nothing rock solid to dismiss truthers out-of-hand.
Compare to birthers, who I almost think were created to be a conspiracy theory anti-matter to malign truthers, as if they are equivalent and cancel each other out. While I'm not completely closed to birthers claims, simply because there is not mega solid evidence Obama was born in Hawaii, I do believe there is some fairly decent evidence he was born in Hawaii (old paper announcements, etc..), and little, to no, evidence he was not (not that definitively means he was not, but you've got to prove it to convince me) And even if he was not, the conjectures, at the least, even by most birther scenarios, is that Obama was born on foreign soil to an American citizen and then, within a few weeks brought back to US, raised in US for many years, left to live with his American mother in a foreign county for several years, and then returned to US for junior high and high school while being raised by American grandparents, and then, as an adult, attended college in US and spent his working life in US. I don't know the legal technicalities of "natural born" but he was a citizen of US moment he was born to an American mother, regardless of location, and seems to have lived a thoroughly American life for all but a few years of of his young, elementary school childhood..so even if birthers are right, they have little evidence of it, and at most, they have a technicality that does not even really, in its essence, conflict with the intention of the natural born requirement in the constitution.
But then there are the truthers, who have some technical evidence of their claims, little to refute their claims, and what if they are right? They raise an issue that, needless to say, goes way beyond a guy being president who does not meet a legal technicality.
And yet, with evidence in affirmation of their claims, and the severity of their claims meriting much more concern than the birthers', people dismiss Truthers as crazy, and the birthers are on Fox News, get passing attention on CNN, networks... meanwhile, truther demonstration on 9/11 that got a protest on the order of magnitude of the Tea Partiers, completely ignored, not even to be mocked, or noted as a crazy, growing movement.
Shouldn't we decide based on what we see and hear and what we confidently confirm by first hand knowledge, or very trusted source, rather than rejecting things just because they seem far-fetched? I, for one, can't find anything to definitively reject truther claims...
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 08:42
#224745
now i am sure ZH is the anti-christ
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:23
#224886
this is the ultimate face(less)book. please don't sell out to google.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 22:15
#224417
Excellent comments. People who really seek the truth in things are rare.
Most people are heavily invested in unrealistic belief systems and to change one fundamental belief is to essential question the entire system. Acknowledging a contradiction in one´s beliefs is avoided. Even belief systems that are in no way religious with respect to content share the emotional faith in the system. If reality contact could be placed in an aerosol can and given away free, there would be few takers. A retired psychologist quipped that he would return to practice when personality implants were possible.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 00:26
#224557
+
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:26
#224329
sorta like teabagger
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:15
#224119
It's more subtle than that. Mix the ingredients, make them boil and add some spices, and the opportunities eventually present themselves for the interested parties.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 00:09
#224539
The U.S. government has done a lot of dastardly deeds, but they did not do the Twin Towers job.
I have built steel buildings and the open-wed truss design of the World Trade buildings could not withstand the heat from the burning jet fuel and the impact damage. Once one floor weakened, the entire building(s) started to pancake and it became unstoppable. Period- end of story.
And yes, some determined Saudi Islamic Arabs did the same thing one of our homegrown boys did (Timothy McVeigh)- they slipped through the system, by doing the unexpected.
Damn this government- the Administration and the Congress, but do not divert scarce energy away from the real issues.
Dubya made sure his Saudi benefactors got out of the country and he did something real dumb, by invading an already beaten Iraq, but the U.S. government did not directly or indirectly do the Twin Towers job.
Sorry Pal(s)
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 08:42
#224746
Kayman
Can't remember the exact figures, but Structural Steel only experiences a very light weakening (of the order of 15%) at the temperatures experienced with burning fuel (800C v. 2000C melting point for steel). This shouldn't have been sufficient to cause failure (or significant bowing in so far as I am aware). Added to the fact that this argument would appear to discount the central columns and treats the building as a box - which in fact so do official reports interestingly.
Can you explain in some more detail your arguement...
A very interested Physicist.
on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 22:18
#247682
Kayman, please explain building 7. No jet fuel, no impact, very small & contained fire.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:28
#223898
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
China Flaps Its Jaws (Again)
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:34
#223918
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907075369/homeland-security/chinese-develop-special-qkill-weaponq-to-destroy-us-aircraft-carriers.html
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:26
#224028
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:18
#224247
Hey, War Nerd is one of my favorites.
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:47
#224285
Jeez. It only gets uglier. I was worried about the Russian "Sunburn" systems Iran bought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJgVaYmiggE
The above story is 10 days old. Well, I didn't do the math so maybe 11. Floating scrap metal is right.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:38
#224342
You guys should stick to talking about something where you have some knowledge.
The Sunburn is not the top Russian antiship missile, the Onyx is, or Yakhont which is the export model. I'd be more worried about an airlaunched Brahmos than a land-based antiship platform.
You people DO understand that the ECM accompanying CVN groups is so powerful that it can make the CVN disappear from the scope, right? Nevermind the ability of the Navy to actively service ANY radar-emitting target on the surface.
If carriers were shit, nations wouldn't be trying to have them. India is trying to get 3 CVs in the water, the Russians are hanging onto theirs for dear life; even mighty China is trying to develop them. If you have naval air power against a navy that does not, you SINK THEM. It's really as simple as that.
A ballistic missile is NOT the Harpoon; the Harpoon is a CRUISE MISSILE. The real danger is long-range skimming hypersonic missiles like the Brahmos.
In a serious conflict, we will destroy every single radar facility in the opponent's theatre. If they turn on a radar to attempt to track our ships, it will be destroyed immediately. If the attack is by surprise, the war is on and the 2nd attack will not be by surprise. So, they can sink one CVN at most before we marshall enough air power and missiles to destroy every single terrestrial asset that our satellites can identify.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 21:30
#224373
Uh, you got me. I am quite "armchair" at many things on this site. What you say makes a lot of sense.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 00:54
#224584
Here you go with your delusional rantings about overestimated US and Indian (which the west could care less about) strength.
A ship can be tracked via land based/ocean based radars, submarines, etc. New Chinese missiles employ advanced guidances systems, high maneuverability and low radar signature.
You do realize that the brahmos project so far has been an abject failure, right? The Chinese have been making advanced supersonic cruise missiles indigenously (which the US has no defense against) for a quite a while now. Smaller Carriers can be a good thing, however a super carrier battle group can be taken out even through the use of even one emp armed cruise missile. You can have your CBGs, but they won't be that effective against a major power such as Russia or China. China has very effective Anti-satellite weapons, you think that the US can effectively blind China in a heartbeat, what a joke. Maybe it could do so to a fourth rate power like India, however China is in a whole different league. China has SAM/ABM systems that can counter incoming missiles.
Assets that US satellites can identify, lol those precious US satellites couldn't even locate third rate Soviet scud missiles in the Iraqi DESERT. The fact of the matter is that super-carriers are obsolete in modern warfare against a real modern enemy.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 01:48
#224624
according to wikipedia this is based on technology the soviets deployed in 1980! there are MUCH more dangerous things out there, and the russians and the chinese are wise enough not to let their expendable pawns in the middle east have them. anyway the proper strategy for when the us attacks you is play dead. then the us will have to send in ground troops, then you go after those, because the US can't take casualties, and military is run by volunteers and war is unpopular because everyone knows that the only people who benefit are the rich.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:35
#224054
Carriers have always been very big targets--and they are not needed except for a "conventional war".
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:49
#224075
Maybe Denninger should get the Blu-ray disc of this to wake him up, yet here is a low quality version of China's military parade in 2009 online at.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8916004936135366443#
And yes, aircraft carriers are very easy targets and sinking one would cost USA taxpayers HUGE HUGE $$$$. Modern warfare is not WWII tactics, so old guys like Karl should remember this is 2010 and not 1945.
PS: Japan is right now trying to get rid of USA MIL base there. Their citizens want it gone from the country because Americans are causing uptic in crime, Americans have raped Japanese citizens, etc.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:19
#224310
+1
Dewd. Denninger just junked you. Not cool.
Yo, Karl, here's '09:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ijgIlHn5F0
---
BTW, I was with you on the bank run idea. I could only take out so much.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 09:09
#224759
Thanks you and yes more Americans need to do bank runs and remove all their funds from their 401k, etc as well. Sadly, those with money market funds could easily be TRAPPED via the newly enacted law. One of my close friends talked to Charles Schwab about liquadating their 401k and it was a nightmare just to legally get their rightfully owned funds back(!). Since when is it that if you have money somewhere that it takes jumping through MANY hoops to then get it back.
Moral Of Story: BEWARE COUNTERPARTY RISK!
--------------------------
As for USA's aircraft carrier and Denninger...
Could not care about being marked as 'junk' as while not being the most brilliant person, if China sinks a USA aircraft carrier as Denninger seems to point to as being the reason USA rules the Earth, am sure China would have in the area the resources to reclaim the now sunken assets. China could then analyze the USA technology while also now being able to use the newly acquired by China USA weapons. One needs to truly think things through when they decide to go to war. There are many situations one must consider before committing resources in the battlefield and Denninger may need to fully appreciate what going to war means on many levels including having the enemy gain possession of your technology/bombs/etc.
---------------------------
One also needs to look at the citizens of a country and how easy it is to disrupt their supply chains. For food, as am example, Russia and China have a very low usage of resources to distribute food to the people. The USA uses a heck of a lot of energy to distribute food to the people due to the proximity of the resource as it pertains to the location of the people.
i could go on without factors, yet will stop here for the time being
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:20
#225007
Yep. Coupla' nukes detonated above the Lower 48 would instantly end all the entitlement programs. And, well, a lot of other things, too. Like sushi happy hour. Dammit.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:45
#225046
Agreed, an EMP attack would cripple the USA in more ways than i care to mention here. So then one needs to understand how such a weapon would affect USA, China, Russia, etc. Which country and their citizens would be most affected, how so, and how fast could a solution to the most critical needs of the people be worked out and implemented.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:29
#224334
Junk. A ballistic missile would have a very low probability of achieving a direct hit on a moving target.
2000km away? Load of shit...you'd have to accurately track the CVN at that range to guide the missile. The US's ECM would light any Chinese radar systems the fk up and prevent such a track. Nevermind that at the outset of the war, our missile systems would actively suppress any launch capability on the mainland. Were such a ballistic missile to be launched, the CVNs have 30+ kt speeds and would get up and haul. Let's see a BM hit a target moving at that speed while coming down from near space. Not gonna happen
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:40
#224345
I see this maginot line belief everywhere - to underestimate your enemy and have a inflated idea of your own capabilities is the gravest of errors and can be catastrophic to your military
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 00:57
#224586
Do you even have a vague grasp of terminal guidance issues with a ballistic missile warhead coming in at hypersonic reentry velocities from lower space????
In the 12m that it would take for this missile to travel 2000km, a CVN at flank would travel over 6nm. GOOD FREAKING LUCK hitting a moving target at that speed with what? The terminal guidance radar on a ballistic warhead?? It would be jammed out of existence. The thing would come down blind and slap the waves.
Ballistic missiles are not new technology and there is a REASON that all other nations have pursued skimming antiship missiles. Look, the missile to fear is the Brahmos as it can be launched over a gigantic operational radius provided by the Su30MKI, essentially all of the relevant Indian Ocean from Malacca to Hormuz.
If you want to hit a CVN with a ballistic missile, you need to get a nuke near it. Expecting to smack the deck with something akin to glorified artillery is foolish.
Also, good luck getting your ordnance out with the entire carrier air wing and support frigates bombarding all of your radars and missile emplacements. Also nevermind that we have ECM so powerful it can cause arcing at range. You'd have to physically find the carrier, track it, and maintain track while it moved and while we tried to destroy your C&C apparatus. Despite the physical size of these things, the ocean is a lot bigger.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 06:15
#224704
Point taken trav7777
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 09:01
#224761
Unlike some of the 1-million (yearly) chinese PhD's, I havn't spent years studying mil aerospace.
But if I was designing this, I would have a satellite-based guidance (guessing passive IR, visual, EM), linked to the delivery vehicle by UV laser or somesuch.
I would add high-G manouverability to the warhead, with perhaps IR/radar decoys.
Lastly the warhead would be hardened agains nuclear AA, like the currently-being-designed gen of US UAVs.
On the other hand, with my tinfoil hat on, this could be the work of Rumsfeld and his "if we can think of it, they must be doing it" opponent research group, which would provide ample justification for accelerated investment in Energy-Beam Weapons.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:19
#224884
You do not need a nuke, you can use an emp warhead and take out the whole CBG. That is why China's newer missiles have taken US Electronic countermeasures into account, the infamous "carrier killer" modified df-21 was unveiled last year. A barrage of missiles (either ballistic or cruise) are considerably cheaper than maintaining supercarrier fleets. Of course the MIC will support their highly profitable legacy systems to death even at the expense of US defenses. Let's not forget the infamous f-117 incident in serbia. The US military is built up more so on hyped fear than actual capability against a major power.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 01:03
#224593
Maybe a third rate Indian ballistic missile, but newer Chinese ballistic missiles are more than capable. Then again they don't need to use BMs with the advent of cruise missiles.
China has developed technology to maneuver through advanced radars, the China of yesterday is not the China of today. Although the India of yesterday really is the same delusional failed India that is today. LMAO, US missile systems suppressing mainland launch capability please, China can more than defend itself with its SAMs, on the other hand the US partiot system was actually proven to do harm to the US military than it actually helped during the second gulf war. With the advent of EMPs the whole CBG does not need to be taken out at all. The fact of the matter is that the US is a declining power and that post-"independence" India (with its slave mentality) never even was a real power to begin with.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:39
#223926
Denninger is apparently clueless about the real weapons China has amassed. Worse still, the more (make that less) i read his writings the more the reality he is blinded by his religion of the market is. In other words, Denninger actually still thinks the market can be put right and be law abiding.
Well, a fool and his money soon part. Just hope Denninger is not Cramerizing his money by drinking his own poison.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:49
#223941
My thoughts exactly !
"Denninger actually still thinks the market can be put right and be law abiding."
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:55
#223948
.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:04
#223974
Agree.
He sometimes has the "we are invincible" attitude. Like his stuff.....but.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:05
#223980
+10 Karl is brilliant in some areas, and freakin' clueless in others. The MSM is playing him like all the other sheeple he constantly harps on.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:39
#224045
+100 Karl really nails it....and really flubs it! This one is an over the top flub!
US Naval College Review write up by Nan Li and Christopher Weuve on "China's Aircraft Carrier Ambitions"
http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/2010---Winter...
http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/99679d4b-cbc1-4291-933e-a520ea231565/...
China Expands its Navy's Reach
http://www.jinsa.org/node/550
Since the end of the Cold War, China has dramatically expanded its navy, especially its submarine fleet, adding dozens of attack submarines since 1995. During the same period, the U.S. attack submarine fleet has shrunk to 53, and it is projected to fall to 41 in 2028. The U.S. fleet is already stretched thin by the demands of ongoing operations. Australia, India, and other Pacific countries have taken note of the shifting balance and have responded with their own naval buildups, particularly of their submarine fleets. Unless the U.S. stops--and reverses--the decline of its own fleet, U.S. military superiority in the Pacific will continue to wane, severely limiting the Navy's ability to operate in the region, to protect U.S. interests, and to support U.S. friends and allies.
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bg2367.cfm
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/bg_2367.pdf
Washington: A Chinese submarine approached a US aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times reported Monday. The newspaper said the encounter highlighted China's continuing efforts to prepare for a possible future conflict with the United States despite the administration's efforts to try to boost relations with theChinese military.
http://www.defencetalk.com/chinese-submarine-stalks-us-carrier-8912/
I’ve been writing about the vulnerability of U.S. Navy surface ships, particularly large expensive aircraft carriers, against other countries’ anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedoes for awhile, now. Specifically, I’ve focused on the latest crop of supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles and supercavitating torpedoes, even though some argue that long-range wake-homing torpedos pose a greater threat to our warships than the supercavitating variety.
Well, that debate may be a moot point due to China’s development of an advanced long-range anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) "kill weapon" that can reportedly target, track, and destroy U.S. surface ships, including aircraft carriers, in a single strike without being nuclear tipped, due to its size. This makes the ASBM "kill weapon" the first ballistic misssile to be successfully developed specifically to attack surface ships. According to a U.S. Naval Institute (USNI) report, the missile has range of 2000 kilometers (2000km) (approximately 1,240 miles) and can reach an aircraft carrier or any other surface ship within 12 minutes at that range.
USNI also reports that the Chinese ASBM "kill weapon" employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature (i.e. low-observability, or "stealth" aspects), and "maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, and thus better able to evade tracking and interception.
http://www.defensereview.com/chinese-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm-ki...
American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.
By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.
According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.
The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html#ixzz0f4nHduXS
A base in the Gulf of Aden area would constitute the first formal Chinese overseas military base.
(China established ostensibly non-military overseas facilities in Namibia and Kiribati in the early 1990s as support for the manned Shenzhou space program.) It reflects China’s growing overseas interests, as well as its expanding military capabilities, including a growing ability to operate far from its shores.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2010/pdf/wm_2752.pdf
Quoting unnamed sources, the United Evening News reported that the submarine belonging to China was spotted at an area 24 nautical miles or 45 kilometers off the Zuoying naval base in Kaohsiung City, last Wednesday morning.
According to the report, the submarine was first discovered by one of the navy's anti-sub S-70C helicopters, but the submarine was allowed to leave later on.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/china-taiwan-relations/2010/02/01/243...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:00
#224100
who are you? love your name.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:16
#224313
Yeah. I second that motion. Well, more the post. I think I've seen a blog with that name before...probably forgot to bookmark it. Wait, I don't bookmark anything...NSA is watching. (fuck you Fednerdz)
---
(edit)
http://yophat.blogspot.com/
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 15:28
#225452
LOL Yeah that's me...one of these days I reckon I'll get turned away at the airport....oh well
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 01:02
#224592
The US Navy was not operating wartime ASW during this stunt by the Chinese sub.
In wartime, our own attack subs would have sunk this Chinese piece of shit. And, the surface choppers would have been operating active ASW. It would have been detected and sent to crush depth violently.
China couldn't mount an amphibious invasion of Hong Kong, much less Taiwan, nevermind contesting our navy in a blue water engagement.
Look doofuses, Pakistan has Chinese subs and these were used in the Kargil War, where India used its carrier battle group to rain down damage on the Pakis where necessary. Nothing got close. Wartime ASW is NOTHING AT ALL like this maritime stunt pulling posture
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 09:15
#224779
Odds of you being a chinese navy intel shill gulling dumb yankees into non-productive complacency: 45%
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:49
#225050
So you claim. The US navy was not even able to detect the Chinese sub to begin with. The only stunts being pulled are by the US military. China would have taken out the ASW, before they would even know what hit them.
The US couldn't mount a successful takeover of Afghanistan, and still can't for almost 9 years now.
China sells export versions to the Paks, they did not sell them their supersonic cruise missiles to use, for which carriers have no defense against. The only posturing is coming from the US and India. The US cannot even deal with the failed state of afghanistan and India cannot even deal with the failed state(s) of pakistan and bangladesh.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 15:46
#225511
Afghanistan is doing just fine! 95% global market share of heroin....that's a pretty tough nut to crack! What happened to the golden triangle? Oh yeah General Khun Sa told Bo Gritz he would turn over 20 years worth of documents disclosing all his Fed contacts.
Long as we keep pumping enough money to keep what's left of the Taliban alive....should continue to do quite well. Probably ought to expand into Pakistan though if we intend to capture more market share....
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 16:17
#225555
Yet the war in pakistan is an abject failure. The pakistanis do not have the same goals as the americans, they are not allies by any means. The americans thought that were and are now dumbfounded, the chinese once again have played the americans. As for the heroin you do realize that originally it was China that started the mass exportation of illegal narcotics into the US to begin with, right? In the 50s/60s. A considerable part of that golden triangle was in China. So did Russia and Russia's satellite states. They were drugging the west and were corrupting western business leaders and politicians. It worked out pretty well for them (at least the chinese, anyway), huh? Just look at the degenerate state of american youth today. You think they are capable of dealing with a dollar crisis, they can barely take care of themselves.
on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 12:45
#226913
That's all fine and dandy....but US (and UK) business interests financed (and still support) Russia and China....so back to square one!
FYI - Russia and China aren't in the best shape either. Drunks and the poisoned!
on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 16:33
#227405
tell us more. i was on your site, you are heavy. have you ever heard of david bonderman with TPG?
on Thu, 02/11/2010 - 22:33
#227961
Nope. What should I know?
What more do you want to know?
Roscoe White (code name - Mandarin) killed JFK (shot to throat and head)...multiple shooters though. Diary discovered years later turned over to the FBI. Teach JFK to fire Allen Dulles. Ironic how Oswald could do shooting, run down several floors, and have drink with boss in 72 seconds. Or that cops let Ruby walk up and shoot Oswald. At least Oswald was smart enough to surrender in a crowded theatre telling everyone loudly that he was unarmed and surrendering peacefully. As the CIA agent set up as the patsy...he had knowledge of the whole operation....hence the need for the planner - Ruby to rub him out.
Ruby was a chain smoker until they told him that Oswald was dead....then he went back to being a non-smoker.
If you are curious and dare take the red pill....make yourself a DVD - http://www.projectredpill.org/freedom101.htm
on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 08:09
#246467
Not these goldbug/austrian school conspiracy theories. Take it do infowars. This is all speculation. There are also equally credible theories which state that the soviets and the cubans assassinated jfk.
on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 08:22
#246475
*to.
I should add that it is not fine and dandy. The Chinese exported drugs to the US and they accomplished demoralizing a whole generation. The US is in a disastrous shape now. This the end of Western civilization. The finance class is no longer willing to support the nation, they are too myopic and materialistic, this has happened time and time again through-out history. Remember the Ottoman empire and all the empires preceding it?
on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 13:18
#246951
Didn't the British show the Chinese how to play that game?
Also drug imports to the US are controlled by the CIA....couple dozen books on it. Can start with Gary Webb who committed suicide a couple years back by shooting himself TWICE in the head!
on Tue, 03/09/2010 - 13:51
#259339
Actually China is following the American model, not the British model in terms of economics. Politically China is following a hybrid Confucianist/Communist/Manchu system.
Drugs were imported initially into the US post-1950 heavily by first the Chinese and then by the Soviets and their partners in Latin America. Mao understood the ability of drugs to corrupt a society. KMT China was a world apart from CCP China. Considering what has occurred since then, and the exponentially increased level of decadence in the US it has appeared to have worked phenomenally. Understand that 1971 changed the whole dynamic. Initially the Golden triangle according to the 1970 CIA map included more of China's Yunnan province a smaller portion of what was Vietnam, Burma, Laos and Thailand. China was known to assist the Northern Burmese and the Thai. This changed (including the map of the golden triangle) when Nixon went to China to establish relations with Mao.
Ever since that point the CIA has actually aided and abetted the drug trade. In fact the reason that the US clamped down on the Swiss banks last year, was to attract more drug money into the Cayman Islands and other British Caribbean Commonwealths. The majority of the banks down there are actually controlled by US banks and then British banks. The reason being of course that after peak oil hit in the US, in addition to the costs of the Vietnam War and the Great Society spending programs the US could no longer afford their Bretton-Woods status. Ever since that point the US was been somewhat complacent in the "war on drugs" and has actually encouraged drug dealers to hold their drug wealth in dollars abroad to buttress the dollar and the US financial system as a whole.
Look up the guardian article.
"Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor"
Also search for "Red Cocaine" by Joseph D. Douglass, yes I know at first sight the title also seemed to be a bit hyperbolic to me. I believe you can find a presentation made by him regarding the subject on youtube or Google Video.
In addition "Super Imperialism" by Michael Hudson.
on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 16:19
#271014
Thank you for the reading suggestions...may I suggest "Called to Serve" by Bo Gritz in return!
on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 07:56
#246458
You are clearly delusional. Western civilization is done for. Look at the US and UK today, all they can do is make one strategic blunder after another, their time is finished. Parasitic Business interests do not mean much if the host nation is irrevocably damaged. Look at the industrial production of the US/UK, their bases to support their respective economies are whithering away. China and Russia are only using business interests to further their political and military gains.
Perhaps not Russia, but China is in good shape. America is in a much worse shape by far. The US banking system is structurally broken along with the whole economy and the US military is stretched thin.
on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 13:19
#246956
LOL Its quite ironic to state that someone else is delusional then turn around and make a delusional statment about China being in good shape!
on Tue, 03/09/2010 - 13:42
#259329
Sorry, let me clarify. China doesn't necessarily have to be in tip-top shape, it only has to be in better shape than the US. This is what Chinese leaders understand. A collapse in the dollar would hurt over-indebted obese sedentary Americans living in a consumer bubble of unrealistic promises a lot more than it would the Chinese CCP. The core base of the Chinese CCP is still the 800 million peasants in the countryside who have not been swept of their feet to say the least by the recent economic growth in China. The migrant workers in the cities still have farms in the countryside that they can return to. Strategically China is in arguably a better shape than the US.
You think Joe Smith (or Stack) is going to enjoy seeing his dollars being halved in value in addition to his home being taken away and his car being towed? Talk about social unrest.
on Sat, 03/20/2010 - 16:29
#271016
Sorry but the dollar isn't collapsing and China has little if any control over it.
The US must borrow more this year than the rest of the world combined....but that has been orchestrated. One key indicator is letting China play currency hedge games for over decades.
Who knows what the real situation with Joe Smith/Stack....but I agree with you the outlook is dim....hence my blog post on it - http://yophat.blogspot.com/2010/03/top-10-reasons-us-economy-will-collap...
That said, China isn't anywhere near as good as you say. They have problems feeding people and right now most of their water is poison....and the food isn't doing so hot.
A little story -
A few years back China thought they would cut out the producers in the mink coat business (they were buying mink pelts from US then making coats for the Russians). They bought a thousand mink for breeding from the US and took them over to China. In less than 6 months only 15 remained. They had to give them bottled water and feed them chickens that the peasants would kill each other over in order to keep them alive....and even at that....they obviously weren't doing so hot.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:42
#224348
Douchinger is not a fool for correctly identifying the laughableness of Chinese weapons and their armed forces, he is a fool for believing that we could selectively default on our largest creditor and not have any knock-on effects like the firesale by everybody else before we default on them for doing something we don't like. Douchinger's prized FRNs would go tits up real quick. Insanely, the TF paper bulls seem to believe that this type of UST collapse would actually make THEIR paper become more valuable!
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:50
#225052
The only laughable weapons are coming from India. The US strategy is too dependent on symmetrical warfare.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 00:21
#224568
The Good News:
Most Chinese Weapons are MADE IN CHINA. Geez, I pulled the trigger, but the trigger broke. That's O.K. we will replace it for free with another (defective) trigger.
China is making noise, acting like they really mean it... what nonsense.
Even the Chinese Communist Fascists can't afford to lose their main customer. Anyway, first they would have to get permission from Walmart.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:56
#225059
Communist Fascist? You reflect like a typical Glenn Beck viewer. Full of contradictions and throwing around terms you cannot even define in any logical capacity.
How have these patriot missiles worked out for you in Iraq, huh? China's economy is only 18% exports to the US, whereas the US is 70% consumption made possible by a propped up dollar.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:53
#223945
Hehe -
Denninger should not talk so loudly about the US military might as long as it is still bogged down and losing to a bunch of 3-rd world peasants.
Second, the Navy is like those knights in shining armour right about when the crossbow was invented: one anti-ship missile and ... BooM goeth one Carrier!
Third, the Chinese should try sell their bonds in the market, nobody will buy them unless its at cents to the dollar. The Chinese will find that this hurts them a lot more than it does the US; GS will probably find a way to make trillions from it, rubbing salt in the wound.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:16
#224315
Asshole. What the fuck do you know about US military capabilities? You are probably some shit hole little jerk off who can't tell his ass from a hole the ground.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:58
#225064
Yup, based upon your demeanor and your limited vocabulary you definitely qualify to be a delusional american.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:34
#224139
China had a restaraunt in the Hunan Province that was in business for 400 years.
And we are just going to waltz over there and beat them ALL up.
Is that right?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:48
#224156
Apologies for OT: Was in China about two months ago and enjoyed a meal at Quanjude, a restaurant known for its trademark Roast Duck and its longstanding culinary heritage since its establishment in 1864 in Beijing. Always funny to hear how a business in the USA is 15 years 'old'.... like that is a long time?
And yes, the food was excellent :)
PS: just wait until you use their 200+ mph trains in China, they are a very smooth ride.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 18:15
#224185
i went to that same one, well everyone probably goes cause it is so good and notoriously known. that was a year before the olympics, still had a little old country feel. ya know why they put fast rail in. so they can run complete kletocracy out the natural resouces out of tibet.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:30
#224264
Way OT but you started it: a London hotel was recently closed for Olympics modernization. Until then the 16-room Eyrie Mansion in Jermyn Street had survived quite a lot since its opening in 1685.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 01:07
#224597
Opium Wars ring any bells?
Where is Queen Vicky when you need her? We should sail our fleet right up their ass and get them back on the pipe
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 02:59
#224642
Yes, the opium war rings a bell. The British ran out of silver to pay for their huge tea consumption. In order to satisfy their thirst for tea, they had to put up that opium stuff.
It would be comical if the consequences had not been that disastrous.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:14
#225083
Although, India which has always been a much easier target should naturally be taken first.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:10
#224115
Silly rabbit. The Chinese aren't playing chess, they're playing weiqi, or commonly known as "go." And that's how they are going end up on top eventually.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:36
#224340
binGO
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:00
#224236
Just the credible threat of selling off Treasuries could start a stampede for the exits.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:58
#223796
Well yes it would hurt them but I've likened this to the standoff in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Someone will pull the trigger first, Japan, the Fed, or China. Personally I believe that the person who pulls the trigger first "wins" IE they get hurt the least where the others who are late out the door will be crushed under a collapsing dollar. This is not to say it would cause damage and chaos, it most assuredly would, however it will happen sooner or later and the parties are staring each other down. Someone will panic sooner or later and pull the trigger.
What I'm really waiting to see is an arms sale from China to Iran as a tit-for-tat to really get the crazy chicken hawks in USA frothing at the mouth.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:11
#223838
I don't think the dollar will collapse. Selling bonds = higher interest rates = higher dollar = higher yuan = lower exports for China and a loss on the remaining bonds.
Of course, they could then just lower the peg on the interest rate. And then the US would probably impose import tariffs, and the trade war would be on.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:55
#223949
A flood of capital out of the United States is NOT dollar bullish. You think capital is going to remain if one major player exits? THere will be a rush for the exits as the entire ponzi house of cards collapses (that being the US). People like you and Doucheinger need to wake up.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:46
#223931
Isn't Iran now China's second largest source of oil? They will protect it. And they can. As others have pointed out, they will do it without firing one shot. Using, that is, overusing our military, has only weakened us. And in the end, Iraq did not simply hand back the oil to the multinationals. Forgive my ignorance, but even if we act first, how do we get out from being crushed by a collapsing dollar?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:56
#223951
This thing can turn so ugly so quickly it'll make your head spin.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:00
#223962
I did not say that the USA could act and not be crushed by a collapsing dollar. I said the Fed could evade it and sell first, big difference. The Fed is after all "independent" and could move in the interest of it's owners. You and I will be crushed no mater what the giants do. And eventually the giants will pull the trigger and we will me harmed in the ensuing currency crisis no matter who pulls the trigger or when.
I cannot say what a person should be in to protect themselves. ZH is filled with experts that of course can. Personally I'm in PMs because I expect they will always have some value and I'm willing to take a paper lose in the short term since to me it is an insurance policy for when the dollar joins the fiat currency graveyard. I'm less concerned with making a vast fortune at this time then I am trying to make sure that I will have some form of capital in the interesting times ahead, but doubtlessly many great fortunes will be made by those who can properly time the markets.
And yes there is an economic connection between China and Iran. China is trying to broaden out it's energy sources and it would not surprise me if we saw a weapons for oil deal between the two of them soon. There has been speculation of something of that nature in Chinese media if memory serves. As a retaliation of the US actions with Taiwan of course.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:29
#224034
I agree.
If I were Chairman of the Presidium of the Chinese Politburo I would definitely consider a massive arms sale to Iran (including strategic weapons systems), partly on credit, partly as an outright grant, and partly in exchange for oil.
Even better would be to station a regiment of the Second Artillery Corps (China's equivalent of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces) directly in Iran, and give the key to the ayatollahs.
We would, of course, reverse the deal if the US gives up its support for Taiwan and cancels the weapons sale....
Just thinking.
KrvtKpt. laughing swordfish
Promoted today to:
Kommandant im Deputize
Reichsministerium des GesellschaftKapitalesHandels
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:39
#224064
I believe Iran's budgeted price for oil is close to the current price? I see nothing scary here other than the insanity trade and China is fully capable of shooting itself in the foot. The dilemma for them is that whatever they do, they hurt themselves more that the "enemy". I can see them execute decisions that actually benefits the US should they sell treasuries. This is not a rational trade and for that reason it deserves a decent probability.
How does one immunize NPLs in China, with US treasuries.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:39
#224065
I believe Iran's budgeted price for oil is close to the current price? I see nothing scary here other than the insanity trade and China is fully capable of shooting itself in the foot. The dilemma for them is that whatever they do, they hurt themselves more that the "enemy". I can see them execute decisions that actually benefits the US should they sell treasuries. This is not a rational trade and for that reason it deserves a decent probability.
How does one immunize NPLs in China, with US treasuries.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:41
#224347
If I were Chairman of the Presidium of the Chinese Politburo I would:
give a bunch of 20-something brainiac physicists schooled on tesla & qigong a boatload of R&D funding.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:36
#224050
Thanks for clarifying. But didn't Timmy G correct congresswoman Kaptur and say the Fed doesn't work for private bankers but works for the public interest?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGczVEWKgl8
So I guess they got our back
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:43
#224071
I broke out laughing when I saw that clip. I guess private bankers = public interest these days. Makes sense when you see the TARP arguments. We mean the same thing just speaking a different language "We work for private banks in the interest of private banks" :)
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:26
#224330
GOOD GOD, I couldn't help but laugh, but it's really not funny considering what is happening to our country.
Kaptur; who did you work for? Goldman Sachs, but but but, Goldman Sachs, ca,ca,can I say some, Goldman Sachs, but but but, Goldman Sachs, who who who, Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 22:12
#224406
Nice. Rep. Kaptur is not dissuaded. Although reading from more from her notes (does it matter?) she continuously requests that Mr. Timothy Geithner perjure himself. If only this had been what American families talked about around the dinner table.
---
If there is a God I thank him for allowing me to speak American English as my native tongue so as to enable me to watch the fate of the world occur in real time. Although if I were a religious type I wouldn't believe in fate. Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:58
#223960
don't those chicken hawks froth so? even as the master of d-day tried to tell us.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 18:20
#224191
I've likened this to the standoff in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Someone will pull the trigger first, Japan, the Fed, or China. Personally I believe that the person who pulls the trigger first "wins"
As long as no one took the bullets out of their gun while they were sleeping. Because thats how you get two types of people in this world: Those with guns, and those who dig.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 00:48
#224581
China already sells arms to Iran. So what else is new. When they replace their main customer- the U.S.- with Iran, I will gladly support both of them.
But for now, can this country get the message. Buying Chinese crap is akin to supporting Nazi Germany in the 1930's. We will rue the day we started buying this cheap shit at Walmart.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:58
#223797
"Its the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight
Risin' up to the challenge of our rival
And the last known survivor stalks his prey in the night
And he's watchin' us all in the eye of the tiger."
...this ain't gonna end well.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:58
#223801
in reality, its cheaper for them to go this route then to actually have a war...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:31
#223909
And the ability to claim victory would be easier as well. Who needs to kill people and destroy property when grabbing power through divestiture is a mere phone call/mouse click away?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:03
#223970
re: first to strike, if they sell now and buy gold (miners)/short treasuries and stocks they might well turn a profit. goldman did in a not altogether different situation.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:58
#223802
Perhaps the calculation is that a hit to the value of their UST holdings, and the damage to exports caused by the probable appreciation of the Renminbi, is still cheaper than an actual military conflict but is likely to damage the US economy far more.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:59
#223806
On the other hand they just put a "half off sale" sign on their Treasuries stash...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:18
#223864
Yes, but the US Treasuries will hold up much better than those Fannie/Freddie "guaranteed" mortgages they dumped over the past year or so. I assume we all noticed they got rid of most of that junk before they pulled the plug.
The Chinese are "hard" bargaining. The difference is that they have the upper hand, not the US.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:47
#223940
what he said
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:04
#223973
Actually, the Chinese handed over securities that were actually backed by something and replaced them with securities backed by nothing more than hot air.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:23
#224020
In principal I agree with you. However, the bond market and China sees sovereign debt as "better" than mortgage debt and I think that's because regardless of what the US says, the US has not taken the mortgage debt onto the nations balance sheet. Thus it's not really guaranteed by the US and can be defaulted on by the USA more easily than the actual USA Treasuries.
I suspect the Chinese see it as the difference between a 1st mortgage (which they consider is the Treasuries but with no real estate collateral) and a 2nd mortgage (the Fan/Fred stuff that is basically a promise to pay backed up by real estate, meaning homes they estimate are worth half or less than original purchase/face value) and they see the mortgage stuff as more toxic.
Based upon the disclosures that have come out and the fact that $1.3+ Trillion was bought by the Fed means the Chinese weren't the only ones who saw the Fred/Fannie mortgages as the bad stuff.
We shall see how this all washes out.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 20:40
#226027
Yep. My money is on the "full faith and credit" crap at the national level going the same way that radical default is going now in the household sector. Unless China decides to take a page from history and just forgives it all. Odds?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:45
#224351
agreed with Miles...nations come & go, but the land endures
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:29
#223901
The most effective way for the Chinese to hurt the U.S. is through a little self-inflicted pain.
Perhaps, now, the Chinese truly believe the time to lay down major pain has come.
Or perhaps, Chinese military officials are gaming for a big budget booster. Could be both...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:09
#223985
your first line was brilliant. Funny thing, they are sooo much more trained for pain than our fat sorry asses. So maybe their ultimate weapon is us.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:02
#223807
story has been on Drudge for hours, just saying.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:06
#223819
Drudge is so last decade.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 17:06
#224111
Drudge was so....never
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:07
#223824
Well, if someone would quit unplugging the CAT5...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:57
#223952
CAT5 is so last decade... Step up to QDR Infiniband! ;)
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:35
#224053
I still use tokenring but I've thought about giving that ethernet a try.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:16
#224246
Wow, and here i am using ZH's BBS system with my acoustic coupler modem.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:04
#223811
Don't say it won't happen. Political goals usually trump economic ones.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:04
#223812
How exactly can the Chinese "fight" the US economically when they peg to our dollar?!
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 01:15
#224603
Thank you...somebody gets it.
They wouldn't HAVE an economy if it weren't for our dollar.
Let them float the RMB and see what happens to their export sector. They already sterilized all their dollars; those are the assets sitting in their CB "backing" the yuan.
They are even more deflation-averse than we are, their stimulus was bigger and the entire country is now one big NPL. It's been uneconomical for years now yet they continue to build. Maybe they expect new customers from Mars.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 13:00
#225139
The Purchasing power of the Chinese renminbi would be allowed to increase relative to the dollar. The US only accounts for 18% of China's gdp in terms of exports. Chinese themselves would be able to afford their goods, they have already astounded the world in the past year with their domestic economy.
China's stimulus is actually going into real production and infrastructure. The US stimulus is actually going into very littler infrastructure relatively, the US stimulus is much more ineffectual. The underlying domestic economy in China is growing, the biggest NPL has been the US.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 09:25
#224804
A wise farmer keeps his best milch-cow in good health.
The endgame is getting the resources.
China is getting the resources, so no further action need be taken. QED.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:06
#223817
Now, I don't understand all this.
I thought China was all about free trade? Now they get upset over 6 billion in arms sales?
Free traders indeed.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:27
#224031
How would the US feel if China sold $6 billion worth of arms to Cuba?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 23:38
#224524
Nobody would give a shit. This isn't 1960.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:35
#224052
China has learned their free trade lessons from the US. See what happens when a scientist offers his knowledge in producing a nuclear bomb. Somehow, the US does not appreciate that...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:06
#223818
Have to hand it to the Chinese, they continue to make our central bankers look smart.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 13:03
#225149
Or have they simply been playing the Western Bourgeois for fools and are now ready to pull the rug out under them?
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 16:11
#225549
Fools? Us? No way! If we were foolish about how markets operate, we'd have asset bubbles, unsustainable debt loads, and government guarantees of NPAs.
Oh, wait...
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:07
#223821
Reloading puts. I dont care if we spike another 200 Dow points. A cliff dive awaits.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:07
#223822
China has realized modern warfare = economic destabilization, destroy the enemy from within. Forget landing troops and shooting off missiles that is so 20th Century...and a bad allocation of resources.
We're all monkeys, know your drugs!
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:09
#223830
Do the Chinese have the power to dictate US policy?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:19
#223869
Yes. Or Duh!
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:32
#223906
China indeed has de-facto dictated our choices by being the enabler of the destruction of our manufacturing base. US was totally complicit as if a Manchurian Candidate. For this we have an Intellegence Agency. The Agency ought to be brokers and find the offer. China can live with pain almost as well as the North Koreans if we chose not to consume and screw their exports..but the key was boiling our frog slowly. Now our leg muscles have atrophied. If our Bonds are not good money to them we lose more than them; the US does not live in a binary world. Of course, China only dictates second in line to the little democratic and apartheid nation that does ignore UN Resolution 242 about Occupied Territory taken in Wartime for four plus decades, attacks and destroys our Intelligence ships without challenge or inquiry (USS Liberty in 1967), has hundreds of armed nuclear warheads, doesn't bother with Nuclear non-proliferation pacts, nor subjects itself to inspection, yet shrieks and gets the vapors at the obvious thought its neighbors might try to level the playing field.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:15
#224008
These guys hold allegiance to a higher power than their nation - themselves.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:45
#224350
so, so true. could read the msm for a lifetime and not encounter that much truth-telling about the misshapen, lunatic u.s. geostrategy.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:10
#223833
Hugh Hendry is right about those guys.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:11
#223836
The Art of War
To capture the enemy's entire army is better than to destroy it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.
-Sun Tsu
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:16
#223863
I wonder if the Chinese have ever read Sun Tsu..
/snark
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:33
#224049
Or play chess?
http://www.schachfieber.de/uploads/buchanan.two_.kings_.jpg
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:01
#223964
In the Nam it was better to shoot knees of ones opponets. Takes 2 more out of the fight to rescue.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:48
#224353
guess they hit more knees than we did. as bill murray's character in stripes notes: the u.s.: 10 and 1. wonder what the statistic now is.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 01:17
#224605
yeah, then along came opium
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:11
#223837
Trade with China is like a bad addiction. The quicker we go cold turkey, the better it will be for our long term financial and economic health. China is far more vulnerable economically than we are.
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 13:08
#225157
That's what the US Treasury and the boys on Wall street would have you believe while they high tail it out of US assets personally.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:12
#223841
They are threatening to sell Treasuries? (i.e. de-peg)
Exactly how is that a threat?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 19:24
#224258
because by depegging from the dollar (selling treasuries) they are basically saying that they dont need US dollars. which means they are strong enough in their currency to trade globally not using the dollar reserve currency. combine this with the fact that the chinese government are urging their citizens to buy PM's then that acts as a 'de facto' backing for their currency (yuan). which will seriously affect the value of the dollar.
their is no reason to use the dollar as a reserve currency, its really just a bad habit that will change. imho
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:13
#223846
I wonder what has changed that has resulted in an apparent Chinese willingness to challenge US hegemony? It has been apparent from at least the onset of the 2008 financial collapse that China now has the means to inflict a serious "punch" (to use today's phrase for aggression) to the US.
During that same time period, the US has not gone out of its way to accomodate China. Take Iran for instance. China has not been pleased with US-led sanctions threats against Iran, let alone military threats issued, with some regularity, against Iran. It has also been mentioned that China did not favor re-appointment of Bernanke. It could be, as well, that China was expecting a lower US budget deficit for both last year, the current fiscal year and 2011. As posters here know, $trillion+ deficits have occurred, are occurring and will occur, respectively, for those 3 years.
Were the tables reversed, it is likely the US would have long since exercised an option to implode the Chinese economy, but that is because the factor of hegemony has been different up until now.
All of this, of course, is as I see it. I know my perspective tends to be a bit different than that of many. I respect the views expressed here and appreciate that mine are tolerated, more or less.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:31
#223908
jplotinus--Appreciate the clear perspective.
My take is this. China has witnessed us transform from a strong creditor Nation to a weak and utterly corrupt/bankrupt debtor Nation, while they have risen from poverty to wealth. A prudent person would never lend money to a junkie. Obama can bow at meetings, but steel and tire tarriffs, Clinton's flap over Google, and other actions might seem kinda arrogant to China. The mass purchase of Gold bullion may have been a hedge against said junkie's failed rehabilitation.
For a bankrupt nation, well....yes--we love to pretend that we still have the power and prestige of a lone superpower. Rehabilitation doesnt happen overnight--even from "cold turkey".
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:04
#223976
I work a lot with large Chinese Telecom businesses and have to deal with Chinese at several levels.
In my experience, the Chinese are generally aggressive and arrogant little pricks when they think that they have the upper hand (managers), subservient and smiling when not (staff).
The US has shown weakness in Chinese eyes primarily by not delivering on Geitner's promise of preserving the value of Chinese investments. Therefore the US is now lower on the power scale than China and therefore they can of course crap on the US at their leisure.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:51
#224355
"generally aggressive and arrogant little pricks when they think that they have the upper hand (managers), subservient and smiling when not (staff)."
hmm...sounds like americans (except for the smiling part for the most part) maybe it's not the fact that they're Chinese, but the fact that they're corporate drones?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:13
#223848
Yawn....much ado about nothing. Linguistic saber-rattling...nothing more. They must sense that we will eventually default on our debt anyway.
Fuck China.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:15
#223851
Who in their right mind would buy any of our treasuries other than Bernanke? And he would have to print money to buy them, making them even more worthless. I thought they were trash. I thought the only reason why China kept buying the junk was so that their total junk pile would not go up in flames.
What are they going to do? Ask for USD from whomever the fool is that buys them for a discount of 75%?
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:14
#223853
We could make the first move - default on the debt owed to China so that they can't sell them. We could say that the mass selling of bonds is an act of war. It would be similar to how we took possession of German owned companies in the US during WWII.
And then we could re-issue those bonds and sell them to somebody else.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:21
#224021
A bit more thought needed here about unintended consequences of such a unilateral move in a global macro-ecomony. There is always a simple answer, but it's most often wrong.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 20:52
#224357
who's we?
on Wed, 02/10/2010 - 13:29
#225195
Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuawait and other creditor nations.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:17
#223865
Another reason to get the federal budget down a lot!
It won't matter if we have a strong military if the Chinese can destroy us by simply selling our debt.
Spending more than you earn puts you at the mercy of your banker.
Every year we are more in the ChiComs power and they are not our friends!
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:17
#223866
BAM!!!. 100% tariff on all of China's shit. How many million Chinese factory workers now out of a job? It works both ways assholes.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:26
#223891
And the resultant empty shelves in mega stores across the country lead to massive riots
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:47
#223938
Right, because if I am denied my right to purchase inferior made goods that are often toxic for low prices, I'm going to bust someone's chops.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:18
#224015
Virtually everything we wear and most of the games, gadgets and gizmos that we work or play with, including the monitor you're looking at right now was probably made, in whole or in part, in China. Generally speaking, the quality of said games, gadgets, gizmos and clothes is at least equal to what it would have been had it been made in the USofA.
It is interesting, though, to think about who has the most to lose in a full on trade war.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 16:39
#224067
No kidding? Dont tell me that the US has been used to buying its domestic peace by bribing its own population with made in China goods, I wont believe it.
If so, dont cut the supply. Streets could turn nasty in the US. Back in the 1920s, bit of ethnical cleansing was done here and there. Could happen whenever.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 22:14
#224419
the fact is, even at 10% unemployment, all the people not working in this country could never produce all the crap we receive from China. We have lost out on a great opportunity. Instead of taking decent cheap labor and putting it to good use, we buy crap that ends up in our landfills while China buys airplanes and nuclear power technology from us.
on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 15:26
#223892
And the resultant empty shelves in mega stores across the US lead to massive riots