The demographic changes ongoing in East Asia

East Asia is undergoing significant demographic changes right now. Reputed China hand Gordon G. Chang has even exaggerated the changes by claiming that East Asia, including China, is dying. He cites the low total fertility rates of Japan, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore.

It is true that these countries will face a demographic crisis in the near future. The latter three countries have the lowest total fertility rates in the world: Singapore the lowest at 0.78 child per woman, Macau at 0.92, Hong Kong at 1.09, Taiwan at 1.10. South Korea is barely slightly better at 1.23 child per woman, Japan at 1.39, China at 1.55, Thailand at 1.66. Australia does slightly better at 1.77, but it’s still somewhat below the generation replacement rate (2.1 CPW).

But China’s total fertility rate, at 1.55 child per woman, is far better than the rate Chang claims (1.20 CPW), and impressive for a country where – as Chang admits – the one-child policy is strictly enforced.

Furthermore, many other countries of East and Southeast Asia have higher fertility rates – ones that are just slightly below, at, or above the population replacement rate.

For example, Vietnam has a rate of 1.89 child per woman; North Korea, 2.01; Sri Lanka, 2.17; Mongolia, 2.19; Chinese ally Burma, 2.23; Indonesia, also 2.23; Bangladesh, 2.55; India, 2.58; Cambodia, 2.78; Laos, 3.06; the Philippines, 3.15;  Papua New Guinea, 3.39.

So not all East and Southeast Asian countries are undergoing a demographic crisis; only some of them. North Korea is on track to retain its population, while South Korea’s population is projected to dwindle significantly; Burma’s and Laos’s population will grow, as well that of potential American allies like India, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Indeed, Filipino, Papuan, Laotian, Cambodian, and Indian women are very fertile and are giving birth to a lot of children these days.

This is not surprising. None of these countries has a foolish “one child policy” or a high abortion rate, and none of them has the culture that China has.

Most Chinese women are shallow, materialist princesses who want the richest guy they can get. And, given that they are vastly outnumbered by men in marriageable age, they can choose from among many men. Furthermore, the significant shortage of women in the age in which marriages are usually contracted means that China will suffer a significant demographic decline in the next 2o-30 years. To avoid it, it would need to abolish its one-child policy.

But the US is not doing any better. In the US, over one million unborn children are aborted every year. America’s population will hold roughly steady solely because of immigration. But most immigrants coming to the US these days are from the Third World, mostly from Hispanic countries like Mexico, and they don’t feel any allegiance to or affinity for the US. They consider themselves Mexican/Argentine/Brazilian/Venezuelan, not American. America is only their residence. They will not fight for America.

Meanwhile, the Philippines are poised for a demographic boom. This is not surprising; the vast majority of Filipino women just want a good, loving, caring husband and a family with many children. They don’t need a rich, handsome, or smoothly-talking guy. Indeed, they know that the best seducer is not the best husband.

The bottom line is that not all East Asian countries are poised to see a demographic crisis. Quite the contrary. Many will see their societes rejuvenate and grow. Only the countries listed by Chang will see their populations decline. Moreover, it is still not too late for China to reverse its demographic decline.

Dismissing the Jin SSBN class is wrong

Nuclear disarmament advocates like Hans Kristensen (a lifelong anti-nuclear activist) and Jeffrey Lewis both dismiss China’s Jin class of ballistic missile submarines as obsolete and comparable only to the Soviet Delta III class, with Lewis wrongly calling the Jin class “a good deterrent – for the 1960s”.

But they are wrong. And as advocates of America’s unilateral disarmament, they have an incentive to lie, specifically, to minimize and downplay the Chinese threat.

And the Jin class is hardly an obsolete deterrent fit only for the 1960s.

Kristensen and Lewis base their false claims on two false arguments: that the Jin class is noisy, and that the range of its SLBMs is sufficient only to reach Alaska and Hawaii. Lewis has even said that he’s willing to sacrifice Anchorage (where two of my friends live) for Taipei.

But they are wrong.

While the first Jin class boat was indeed noisy, as depicted by the Office of Naval Intelligence, this is not a problem for the Chinese Navy. If the Jin class patrols in constrained, congested waters like the Sea of Japan or the Philippine Sea, it’s quiet enough to avoid detection in these noisy, congested waters where it’s hard to distinguish it from other naval vessels or from civilian ships.

And if it patrols in the vast swathes of the open Pacific Ocean, as I suspect it does, the vast size of that ocean – the largest body of water on Earth – makes it extremely hard to find a Jin class boat, because you don’t know where to look for it. To find it, you’d have to search the entire ocean, and no navy will ever have the resources to do that.

Moreover, in the last 11 years, the USN’s anti-submarine warfare skills have atrophied disastrously as a result of the DOD’s previous, obsessive singular focus on COIN wars. The Navy’s P-3 Orion crews, for example, have spent little time training for ASW, and almost all of their time conducting ISR missions over Afghanistan and Iraq. The P-3 Orion fleet has also shrank disastrously in numbers, its replacement (the P-8 Poseidon plane) has been delayed and orders are insufficient, and the S-3 Viking carrier-borne ASW plane has been retired. The Chief of Naval Operations himself has admitted that the Navy’s ASW skills have atrophied.

Such skills and capabilities will take many years, if not decades, to regain.

As for the JL-2, multiple sources confirm that the JL-2 has a range of 8,000 kilometers. That gives the Jin class the capability to target all of America’s West Coast – from Alaska all the way south to San Diego, and all cities and military facilities there – while staying west of 160 degrees east, far from the CONUS and not far from their homeport. To be within range of the entire West Coast of the CONUS, including San Diego, they’d have to sail just slightly east of Japan, to slightly more than 150E. To be within range of Seattle, they can actually stay west of Japan, in the Sea of Japan. To hit targets as far as Houston, they’d have to sail just slightly east of Hawaii.

This is far better than “a deterrent suitable for the 1960s”. China’s navy already has submarines and missiles that can target America’s West Coast while being relatively close to their homeport, west of 160E, thanks to the JL-2′s 8,000 km range. This is a feat that the Soviet Navy did not achieve until the 1980s.

When the first Soviet ballistic missile submarines wre commissioned and went on patrol, they had to patrol relatively close to America’s coasts – just 300 kms away from them. This was due to their missiles’ short range.

But as the range of Soviet ballistic missiles significantly increased, their subs became capable of launching these SLBMs far away from America and close to their homeports, north of the GIUK gap. These areas far away from the US, close to their homeports, were considered “bastions” by the Russians.

The deployment of Typhoon class SSBNs armed with long-ranged SLBMs gave the Soviet Navy the capability to hit the US while being in their homeports.

Look at the maps here.

In the 1980s, the Delta I class, armed with the new SS-N-20 SLBMs, was able to target the CONUS while being far away from it and patrolling nearby Greenland and Alaska.

The deployment of even longer-ranged SLBMs gave Soviet submarines the ability to target the CONUS while being between Scotland and Greenland (the Yankee class) or north of Scotland behind the GIUK gap, as well as around Kamchatka and nearby Vladivostok in the Sea of Japan (the Delta II/III class). In other words, the Delta II/III class, with newer SLBMs, could stay close to its own homeports in the Pacific Ocean (Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky), in home waters around Kamchatka and Vladivostok, and still hit the West Coast; or stay safely behind the GIUK gap and still hit the East Coast. The following map illustrates this.

But the Soviets didn’t achieve that feat until the late 1980s.

China has already achieved that feat. It has already achieved what the Soviet Union needed four decades to accomplish. As I stated earlier, the JL-2 SLBM’s range, 8000 kms, allows Jin class SSBNs to hit the entire West Coast of the US while still being relatively close to home, west of 160E. Here’s a map illustrating this. The area marked in red is the approximate area closest to China from where a Jin class boat could launch its SLBMs at any point on the West Coast. It’s just slightly east of 150E longitude.

In the 1980s, in the Soviet Union, newer, longer-ranged SLBMs such as the SS-N-23 and the R-29 Sinyeva gave the Russians even greater capability. By the late 1980s, their SSBNs could stay in homeport, or around it in home waters near the Kola Peninsula, and still hit the CONUS.

Of course, the Russian Navy’s even newer and longer-ranged SLBMs, the R-29M Sinyeva and the SS-NX-30 Bulava, have an even longer range. But the Russian Navy’s SSBNs can already hit most of the US while being in homeport or in Russian territorial waters.

In conclusion, the Jin class, which consists of 5 boats soon to be joined by a sixth one, is a very formidable deterrent, with the ability to hide in the congested, noisy waters nearby the Asian landmass and the vast swathes of the Pacific Ocean where the Navy wouldn’t know where to find it. Making the job even easier for China, the USN’s anti-submarine-warfare skills have atrophied and will take many years, if not decades, to regain. Moreover, the JL-2 SLBM’s long range (8000 kms) allows the Jin to target all of America’s West Coast while still being relatively close to home, west of 160E, just east of Japan.

And the further east, the further out to the Pacific Ocean the Jin class ventures, the more targets in the US its missiles can hit.

Furthermore, contrary to Hans Kristensen’s lie, the JL-2 can carry 3-4 warheads (or up to 8, according to MissileThreat.com), not just one. Each Jin class boat can carry 12-24 missiles, thus carrying up to 96 of them; so China’s 5-boat Jin class (soon to be joined by a sixth Jin) can carry at minimum 240, and up to 480, warheads.

In other words, Kristensen and Lewis have been proven dead wrong yet again. This is no surprise, because both of these anti-defense, anti-nuclear hacks have an agenda to lie (in this case, to minimize and downplay the Chinese nuclear threat), because any evidence that China is a greater threat than they admit would be a threat to their agenda of unilaterally disarming the US. Given that the Chinese nuclear threat is far greater than they admit, though, such an agenda would be downright suicidal and disastrous for the US.

China is not America’s banker

China is not America’s banker, contrary to what many people have claimed. They’ve also claimed that because China is supposedly America’s banker, America must continue the Kissingerian policy of appeasement towards China. But they’re wrong.

China is not America’s banker. China must buy American T-bonds because it cannot buy anything else. It cannot buy the T-bonds of other countries, nor gold, nor anything else. The huge amount of money that China earns every year on exports is so big that it can be invested only in American T-bonds.

America doesn’t need to ask China to buy US T-bonds, because it could ask someone else to do so (e.g. Japan). Most of America’s public debt is NOT owed to China. 40% of it is owed to the Federal Reserve and other governmental agencies; i.e. this part is owed by one part of the US government to another. Of the other 60% part, only a small part is owed to China. Most of the foreign debt owed by the US to foreign countries is NOT owed to China.

Also, America is China’s biggest export market. The US can buy cheap products from emerging countries other than China (e.g. Vietnam, India), so it doesn’t need China as a producer. (If the Congress instituted protective tariffs, America wouldn’t need any imported products from anyone, except fuels, and the American industry would rebound.) But China cannot survive without America as an export market. 17.7% of China’s export goes to the US. America is China’s biggest export market. China’s total exported cargos, as of 2008, were worth $1435 bn. 17.7% of 1435 bn is $253.995 bn. Only an economic suicider would give up such a huge amount of money. And China would do so if it ruined the US economy (e.g. by selling its stock of American T-bonds).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

America doesn’t need China. But China needs America.

So-called “feminists” are despicable liars

Recently, AT contributor Jan LaRue asked:

“While we’re at it, NOW and its feminist allies need to explain their deafening silence. Are they placated by the assumption that gals might join men in the pool at an Islamic center “guided by Islamic values”? Is the National Council of Women’s Organizations still too busy trying to crack the membership glass ceiling at Augusta National Golf Club to get teed off about industrial-strength inequality of women?”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_manhattan_mosque_and_women.html

The answer is quite simple: so-called “feminists” are despicable liars. They don’t care about the rights of women, although they claim they fight everyday to protect them. They don’t care about the status of women. They don’t care about equal rights or the plight of foreign women. They care only about the interests of the liberal establishment (of which their leaders are members) and about extremely liberal policies which are designed to create a statist, liberal, pro-death-culture West on the ruins of the Western civilization.

So-called “feminists”, including NOW members, NEVER protested against voluntary abortions committed on unborn girls. Such abortions kill 500,000 unborn American girls every year.

So-called “feminists” NEVER protested against compulsory abortions imposed on Chinese women and infanticide committed on infant Chinese girls.

They NEVER protested against the discriminatory laws of Islamic countries (e.g. pre-2001 Afghanistan and today’s Saudi Arabia) barring girls and women from schools, ordering them to wear hijab, and barring them from meeting up with men who are not their family members.

They NEVER protested against the executions of (mostly innocent) women accused of adultery by the governments of the Islamic countries they inhabit (e.g. Iran and Saudi Arabia).

They NEVER protested against the burnings of Afghan and Saudi Arabian schools attended by girls.

They never protested, because they don’t care about the plight of women. They are despicable liars who only use women for their own political purposes. They endorse politicians who favor a policy of appeasement towards the criminal regimes of China and Iran. And they insult, lie about, and fight against every woman who dares to oppose their extremely liberal agenda.

By the by, the vast majority of so-called “conservative women” have married solid husbands, raised decent children, built good homes, and live happily.

So I say to feminists: You are despicable liars, and no self-respecting woman would ever endorse you.

Yet additional proof that the US military needs submarines

Yesterday, the USS Missouri, a Virginia class submarine, was commissioned. (The previous USS Missouri was a battleship on which the Japanese signed an Act of Unconditional Surrender.)

Opponents of a strong defense, including Bob Gates (whose wife served as the ship’s sponsor), claim that America is now facing only irregular threats, and that against these threats, submarines are useless.

But they are wrong: America is facing numerous conventional threats (including two peer competitors, China and Russia), and submarines are usable against the entire spectrum of threats facing the US – nuclear, conventional and irregular threats alike.

According to the official website of the USN:

“Missouri is built to excel in anti-submarine warfare; anti-ship warfare; strike warfare; special operations; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; irregular warfare; and mine warfare missions in both the world’s shallow littoral regions and deep waters.”

Virginia class submarines (like their Seawolf class peers) can launch UAVs and deploy Navy SEALs, as well as gather intelligence data. So they’re good anti-terrorist weapons.

I agree with Secretary Mabus, who

“reminded the crew of the versatility of their future missions.

“It may take you underneath the Arctic ice or the warm waters of the Indian Ocean,” said Mabus.

Secretary Mabus also stressed the importance of the savings of the construction program, citing the submarine’s early completion and delivery ahead of schedule.”

Indeed, the submarine’s completion and delivery ahead of schedule proved that the Virginia class submarine program is a well-functioning program which deserves additional funds.

Other government officials have also stated that the USS Missouri was a worthy investment indeed:

“Other speakers included Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, who noted Missouri “will deliver an outstanding return on the nation’s investment.”

Missouri will directly enable five of the six Navy maritime strategy core capabilities – sea control, power projection, forward presence, maritime security, and deterrence.

Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was the keynote speaker.

“There is none better,” said Skelton, referring to the submarine. “This amazing submarine and the other submarines of this class are vital to our national security. The simple reason is contained in one word: stealth.”"

Of course – the Virginia class submarines are extremely quiet (on par with Russian Improved Akula class and Syevyerodvinsk class submarines), and together with their Seawolf class peers, they’re the quietest submarines ever operated by the USN. Indeed, rather than develop an entirely new SSBN type, the DOD should develop a derivative of the Virginia class of attack submarines.

The Virginia class program is the best investment ever made by the US.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=55038

Nonetheless, additional Virginia class submarines are absolutely necessary to fend off the Chinese threat and the Russian threat, because the US military is no longer the strongest military in the world.

Bob Gates has falsely claimed that America has more nuclear-propelled submarines than the rest of the world combined. His claim is demonstrably false.

America currently has 52 nuclear-propelled attack submarines (most of which are slated to retire by 2025), 4 SSGNs and 14 SSBNs, a total of 70 nuclear-propelled subs.

China has 10 nuclear propelled subs (and is building additional ones), including 3 SSBNs. Russia has 5 SSGNs, 18 SSBNs (including 3 Typhoon class boats), 4 Sierra class SSNs, 4 Victor class SSNs, and 13 Akula class (Shchuka class) submarines. This is a total of 54 nuclear submarines. On top of that, France has 10 such boats (4 SSBNs and 6 SSNs), and Britain has 11 (4 SSBNs and 7 SSNs, including one Swiftsure class submarine and 6 Trafalgar class submarines). That’s a total of 75 nuclear submarines, 5 submarines more than America has. Moreover, because the USN operates no conventional submarines, these 4 countries combined have more nuclear submarines than the USN has submarines of all kinds.

Moreover, we shall not ignore the fact that conventional submarines can compensate for a lack of nuclear submarines, and can be as quiet as their nuclear counterparts. China has 1 conventional ballistic missile submarines and 47 conventional hunter submarines, including 24 extremely quiet AIP-equipped submarines of the Yuan class, the Song class and the Kilo class, which the USN is utterly unable to detect. In 2008, a Song class submarine stalked an American aircraft carrier battle group, which was unable to detect it until it surfaced. And when it surfaced, it was close enough to sink the carrier.

The Russian Navy possesses 17 Kilo class submarines.

Altogether, the Chinese submarine fleet consists of 58 boats of various kinds, and China is building additional boats to equal the USN in terms of numbers. Together with the Russian submarine armada, the Chinese undersea fleet vastly outnumbers the submarine fleet of the USN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ships_of_the_People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy#Inventory

China is not a financial threat

50% of Americans recognize China as what it is – a threat to the US. The number of Americans considering China an enemy (19%) is 2 times bigger than the number of Americans who believe China is an ally (10%). (61% of Americans say it’s neither an enemy nor an ally.)

But many Americans don’t recognize that China is not a financial threat, but rather a military threat. 86% of Americans are concerned about the amount of American debt that China owns, and 73% of Americans say that it’s at least somewhat likely that China will use that debt against the US.

China will not do this. China owns too little of American federal debt to really influence the US economy. As of January 2009, China owned $740 bn of US federal debt; as of December 2009, China owned $755 bn (according to WaPo – which is not a credible source).

The total federal debt of the US is $10.632 trillion, that is, $10632 billion. That means that China owned 6.9% of the American federal debt as of January 2009 and 7.1% as of December 2009. Any claim that CHina is a financial threat to the US, or that China could blackmail the US with the T-bonds it owns, or that China could collapse the US economy with just 7.1% of the US federal debt, or that China is America’s banker, is ludicrous.

China is a military threat, however. Its nuclear arsenal is growing, and its ICBMs can reach the entire US. It has a secret underground submarine base at Sanya (Hainan Island) and a submarine fleet as big as the American submarine fleet. It has a $150 bn defense budget and hundreds of Flankers, J-10s and JF-17s – all of which are superior to American F-15s, F-16s and F-18s. The only deployed American aircraft that can defeat them are F-22s. But the DOD shut down the F-22 production line during this fiscal year. Besides, China has Hongquin SAMs (land-based and ship-based variants) which can shoot down any nonstealthy aircraft.

So yes, China is a threat. But it’s not a financial threat. It’s a military threat.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/china/50_see_china_as_long_term_threat_to_u_s

Rick Moran caught lying again.

“I’ve made the point before but it bears repeating. Russia, China, and the rest of the world are not stupid. Even if it is their desire to stick it to the west and the US, you have to be bloody out of your mind to acquiesce in the prospect of Iran building a nuke.”

You are WRONG (as usual). It is in the interest of Russia and China to make Iran a nuclear state, because Iran will then aim its nuclear missiles against America and its allies. Russia and China won’t be targeted – they are Iran’s best allies and buddied with it several years ago to oppose America and, ultimately, bring it down. They will NEVER back ANY real sanctions against Iran. And Russia will continue to supply Iran with nuclear fuel, missiles, reactors, and the weapons Iran needs to defend itself against the US (e.g. S-300 SAMs and SU-30 Flanker jets).

“Everyone knows that if that were to occur, the prospect of nuclear war would become a real possibility.”

Gibberish. The prospect of nuclear war would remain what it is now – an unrealistic fiction propagated by scaremongers. There’s no evidence that Iran would ever use nuclear weapons first – unless attacked by Israel or the US. Iran is deterrable. The mullahs are cruel, but not insane. They know that Tehran would become a radioactive crater if they launched a nuke at the US or Israel.

What the Chinese are buying

I have already written a few blog posts and a few mag articles, as well as several AT comments, about what the Chinese are buying with the dollars they earn for their exported goodies. However, a new blog post was necessary, to include additional information. I’ve decided that the more info I publish, the better.

China is the #1 exporter in the world, having surpassed Germany in 2007. The annual Chinese global trade surplus is $315.7 bn as of 2007. America’s annual global trade deficit is $816 bn as of 2007. America’s annual trade deficit vis-a-vis China is $250 bn as of 2007. What do the Chinese spend their cash on? Weapons.

The Chinese are now developing XXJ fighterplanes, which will be as good as F-22s. America must therefore produce hundreds more F-22s. I have not checked if F-14s (which have been retired but could be recommissioned), F-18s or F-15Es could defeat XXJs.

Why China is a threat to America

Fred Thompson (who, along with John McCain and 81 other American senators, voted for the MFN status for China), is dangerously naive about China. They claimed that there are only some questions about China’s “peaceful rise”. (However, McCain wisely called on China and Russia to be excluded from the decision-making table and would pursue hawkish foreign policies versus them. Cato Institute, by criticising him, has proven that he’s a hawkish conservative.) Actually, China is a totalitarian state which is now arming itself with ICBMs, SLBMs, subs, planes, surface ships, tanks and other weapons. How does it pay for them? With cash earned for its cheap, defective exports, which China subsidises by 40%. The AFP claimed that the truth that China is annually undervaluing its currency by 40% is an allegation. The AFP also noted China’s growing annual trade surplus vis-a-vis America (which China spends on ships, planes and missiles).

Giuliani is also naive about China; he said that China is a great opportunity for America and that Americans should welcome China as a global player.

Among the weapons that the Chinese are procuring are:
1) Aircraft carriers. They’ve already bought 2 ex-Russian carriers (incl. the “Varyag” (“Viking”) ship) and are now building an indigeneous carrier.
2) SSNs.
3) Conventional SSNs (e.g. Kilo-class subs). One such vessel was stalking CV-63 in 2006 and then emerged close enough to that carrier to sink it. Until it resurfaced, neither the CAW nor the escort ships nor their helicopters could detect that submarine.
4) Dong Feng ICBMs.
5) Su jets, including Su-27s, J-11s and Su-30s. (Su-27s are equally as good as F-15C/Ds but superior to F-16s).
6) Ju Lang SLBMs, which are arming China’s growing fleet of SSBNs.
7) Other types of missiles (including air-to-air missiles ranged far longer than American rockets, even AIM-120s).
8) SSBNs.

The Chinese ballistic submarine fleet will numerically match the British and French ballistic sub fleets – although the Chinese one includes one diesel-powered vessel and one Xia-class vessel (both prone to ASW equipment, but Globalsecurity.org wrote about the Xia-class sub that “Although the range of the JL-l limits the XIA’s utility as a deterrent platfonn, targets throughout the region, including US military facilities, could be targeted with the J-l from launch points inside traditional Chinese Navy operating areas.”). The latter will be retired in 2015, when the Chinese ballistic missile submarine fleet will numerically exceed the British and French fleets because it will have one diesel-powered sub and 4 Jin-class SSBNs (so its SSBN fleet will numerically match the British and French fleets).
By 2020, the combined submarine fleet of the Chinese Navy, numbering 78 subs (71 subs in 2015), will outnumber the combined submarine fleet of the USN, which currently consists of 18 Ohio-class, 48 LA-class, 3 Seawolf-class and 4 Virginia-class vessels, for a total of 73 vessels.

Globalsecurity.org wrote that “A ballistic missile submarine fleet would enhance Beijing’s assurance of an effective retaliatory capability, as well as strengthening her deterrent posture.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/type_92.htm

The Chinese military also has 1524 fighterplanes (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined), which fleet will grow to 2025 fighterplanes in 2015 (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined). Together with the Russian military, it already outnumbers the combined fighterplane fleet of the American military. Currently the PLAAF has 1250 such planes while the PLAN has 274. By 2015 the total will include 1800 jets of the PLAAF and 225 jets of the PLAN. Then there are 25 JH-7 fighterplanes of the PLAAF, which will be joined by 175 JH-7 jets of the PLAAF by 2015, 24 J-11 jets of the PLAN, and 20 JH-7 jets of the PLAN, which will be joined by 30 JH-7 jets of this branch of the PLA by 2015. So by 2015, the PLA will have 2299 fighterplanes – more than the USAF has. Their JF-17 jets are inferior to F-16s and F-15C/Ds alike, let alone 5th generation American jets, but they account for only a tiny fraction of the plane fleet of the PLA. F-10s and Su-30MKK (K=China) are as good as F-16s and F-15C/Ds; F-11Bs are superior to them all (as are Indian Su-30MKIs).

MiG-29SMTs, JF-17s and F-10s are superior to American jets by electronic attack equipment. Su-30MKKs and F-11Bs are superior to American planes on that count as well as weapon loads and unrefueled operational radiuses. Su-30MKIs can boast all that and are more maneuvrable than American jets. All of these planes can track as many as 10 targets simoultaneously and engage them with their decent missiles.

Chinese unmodified PL-12 missiles can be launched slightly farther than American AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles; Chinese modified PL-12 missiles and Russian KS-172 rockets are much longer ranged than AIM-120s. As are Russian R-77 (AA-12) missiles, which, with a range of 108.7 miles, are superior to American AMRAAMs (whose range is only 60 miles). (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA-12_Adder; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMRAAM).

The Chinese military also has 188 strategic bombers (the PLAAF and the PLAN combined) – the PLAAF has 120, the PLAN has 68. Together with the Russian military, it already outnumbers the strategic bomber fleet of the USAF (the USN has no strategic bombers).

The Chinese are also building a secret underground naval base in Sanya, Hainan Province, where they will house 20 submarines and “a host of carriers”, according to the Daily Telegraph. The base will host 20 subs indeed. It’s being built at the southern tip of the Hainan Province. There is also a Naval Air Station in Sanya.

The Chinese also have a network of SAMs and decoy silos. And they’re buying and building more of them.

The land branch of the PLA is also strong – its arsenal includes 7010 tanks, 1200 self-propelled cannons and 6000 antitank missiles. China is now developing a new tank type, Type 99.

China’s annual military budget is $125 bn, according to the Pentagon, i.e. twice more than Britain’s annual defence spending ($60 bn and shrinking). However, China is militarily stronger than these aggregate stats would suggest. Firstly, in China, one dollar can buy much more than in Britain or America. Secondly, China spends its monies wiser than the British MOD and the Pentagon. The British MOD spends large sums on expensive, inferior European military equipment (produced in Europe), rather than on cheap, decent, British-produced British and American weapons. For example, rather than buy 232 stealthy F-35B fighterplanes, which can take off from land bases and carriers alike, the MOD has bought 232 EF-2000 (Typhoon) jets that are not stealthy nor flexible, and are twice as expensive as F-35Bs. As for the Pentagon, the Congress has forced it to waste huge sums on maintaining old planes (for parochial reasons) rather than buy new ones.

Some American pacifists have alleged that China’s military spending is “proportional” to its “legitimate defence needs”, but they’re liars. Firstly, China’s military investment is nominally excessive; secondly, it’s disproportional also, because China is not threatened by any state that would justify such a huge military investment ($125 bn). China is a belligerent actor that plans to fight the Tibetans, nuke America, conquer Taiwan and aid the DPRK if a second Korean War starts.

China will start rivalling the US by winning more gold medals than America during the 2008 Olympics (which Dubya refused to boycott).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/2308979/Beijing-Olympics-Battle-for-gold-offers-China-first-chance-to-defeat-America.html

The myth that Fred Thompson is a conservative

Fred Thompson would be a better president than Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo or any Dem, but he is not a conservative. Melanie Morgan is a good columnist, but she’s wrong on this one. Sorry, Melanie, no offence, but you’re wrong on Fred Thompson – he’s not a conservative.
Thompson is a RINO because:
1) He voted for the Most Favoured Nation status for China, thus allowing them to receive that status and to join the WTO. This bad decision can be reversed only if America withdraws from the WTO (but it shouldn’t). The Chinese are now harming the American people by:
a) cheating (trade-wise), causing America to indebt itself because of its annual $250 bn trade deficit with China;
b) undermining the American industry; and
c) buying tanks, ships, planes and missiles for the dollars they’ve earned by exporting their inferior products.
Tom Tancredo, along with ultraconservative anti-Communists Duncan Hunter and Jesse Helms, voted against MFN status for China.
2) Thompson would reduce the American nuclear arsenal, if elected to the WH.
3) Thompson would give the US military only 4.5% of GDP.
4) He is opposed to a constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual marriages.
5) He is opposed to federal abortion bans. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE
Real conservatives, like me, would advocate federal statutes banning abortion and an anti-abortion amendment to the federal constitution.