China white paper highlights US military 'competition'

[Berkut]

What I don't understand is that it seems to me that China's action don't even really make sense from a foreign policy perspective. I suspect that most of their foreign policy decisions seem to be driven almost completely by domestic consumption concerns.

They do not like the many military alliances that the US has all around them, and (reasonably so) find it rather threatening that the US has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc., etc. Yet their actions over the last 10+ years have been such that their neighbors feel MORE inclined to look to the US for security against an aggressive (or at least seemingly aggressive) China.

If you aren't happy that other countries are entering into or strengthening military ties with the US, why act like d-bags and make them think they need those ties?

[CountDeMoney]

China's actions are all designed for a single purpose: Taiwan.

1) SSM expansion in the South China Sea to hammer the Taiwanese into submission,
2) diesel boat expansion to secure the sea lanes and choke Taiwan in a blockade, and
3) anti-carrier, ASAT and assymetrical cybermeasures development to interdict and counteract the 7th Fleet's ability to project its power forward in the unlikely event the US would want to assist Taiwan.

[Camerus]

The answer is that for the PRC government, building ties with its neighbours takes a definitive backseat vs. other priorities - the primary one being simply to continue to shore up its domestic legitimacy so as to stay in power. 

[grumbler]

What I don't understand is that it seems to me that China's action don't even really make sense from a foreign policy perspective. I suspect that most of their foreign policy decisions seem to be driven almost completely by domestic consumption concerns.

I think that this is correct

They do not like the many military alliances that the US has all around them, and (reasonably so) find it rather threatening that the US has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc., etc. Yet their actions over the last 10+ years have been such that their neighbors feel MORE inclined to look to the US for security against an aggressive (or at least seemingly aggressive) China.

Insert Quote
What I don't understand is that it seems to me that China's action don't even really make sense from a foreign policy perspective. I suspect that most of their foreign policy decisions seem to be driven almost completely by domestic consumption concerns.

They do not like the many military alliances that the US has all around them, and (reasonably so) find it rather threatening that the US has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc., etc. Yet their actions over the last 10+ years have been such that their neighbors feel MORE inclined to look to the US for security against an aggressive (or at least seemingly aggressive) China.

If you aren't happy that other countries are entering into or strengthening military ties with the US, why act like d-bags and make them think they need those ties?

I don't think that the government minds all of the alliances around it too much. They serve a useful purpose in justifying the repression of the peoples' freedoms.

[Alcibiades]

When the Chinese invaded US territory (the EP-3 that was forced to land on Hainan Island after a crazed Chinese fighter pilot rammed it and crippled it) that pretty much ended any pretense that the PRiCk government is anything but an enemy of the US.  I will grant that the Chinese people are not hostile, but that government has to go, Mubarak-style.  I'd prefer Ceaușescu-style but will live with Mubarak-style.

I would prefer Goldwater-style.  They still use liquid fuel for their ICBMs that take 24 hours to ready for launch.  All I need is a single SSBN for a pre-emptive strike.

But you're former Navy.  Please explain to me why that EP-3 pilot was not courtmartialed for not splashing the plane.

"Oh no, we're in trouble...I guess we'll just have to LAND IN THE COUNTRY WE'RE SPYING ON WITH ALL THIS LEET SURVEILLANCE GEAR AND UP TO DATE CRYPTO CODES"

This, any insight grumbs?

[grumbler]

But you're former Navy.  Please explain to me why that EP-3 pilot was not courtmartialed for not splashing the plane.

"Oh no, we're in trouble...I guess we'll just have to LAND IN THE COUNTRY WE'RE SPYING ON WITH ALL THIS LEET SURVEILLANCE GEAR AND UP TO DATE CRYPTO CODES"

This, any insight grumbs?

The Navy doesn't require its crews to suicide themselves rather than land at a potentially hostile airport.  Naturally, it does require that the crypto be destroyed (as was done) and the self-destruct charges be set (which was done, but which only partially worked).  Luckily for USN aviation recruiting, the rules of behavior are not written by middle-aged anonymous internet dweebs with epeen issues (not that I am saying this describes Seedy, exactly...).

[Siege]

But we all know Seedy is a retard.

[Alcibiades]

The Navy doesn't require its crews to suicide themselves rather than land at a potentially hostile airport.  Naturally, it does require that the crypto be destroyed (as was done) and the self-destruct charges be set (which was done, but which only partially worked).  Luckily for USN aviation recruiting, the rules of behavior are not written by middle-aged anonymous internet dweebs with epeen issues (not that I am saying this describes Seedy, exactly...).

I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.

[The Brain]

Crew were probably card-carrying Communists.

[Admiral Yi]

More than likely the pilot landed rather than risk the life of his on-board closet homosexualist butt partner.

[grumbler]

I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.

Take a guess at the survival rate of aviators who bail over water.

[DGuller]

  Somewhere in the range of 0-100%?

[Tonitrus]

I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.

Take a guess at the survival rate of aviators who bail over water.

If GHWB can do it, anyone can. 

[grumbler]

I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.

Take a guess at the survival rate of aviators who bail over water.

If GHWB can do it, anyone can. 

Have you ever wondered why there is never any interview footage with the other two members of Bush's crew from that flight?  No books by them, no reunions with the Big Guy?

[jimmy olsen]

I'm sure they had chutes,was just following his thinking that it would have been better to just eject it in to the ocean than land it on an 'enemy' runway.

Take a guess at the survival rate of aviators who bail over water.

If they ditched over land, how likely would it be that all sensitive stuff would be destroyed on impact?