Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (58011)	11/16/2009 10:43:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	4 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217559

Aerial and submarine devices seem likely to be more valuable than monster stacks of steel [whether floating, flying, submarine or on wheels] which were excellent for attacking Polish troops on horseback and zooming over the top of Iraqis in trenches and attacking ocean-going cargo carriers and like-minded ships. From the article you linked, Go computer players are progressing very nicely and akin to earlier attempts at chess though there are qualitative differences. I have heard of Go and understand it's a sport equivalent to building walls [as they do in China] during down-time from carting life-sized rocks into position to capture and protect territory. Go obviously originated about the time of the Great Wall of China being built when such walls were a big deal. Walls are still very popular in China. CDMA/OFDM signals are relatively unimpeded by such walls. Especially those emanating from satellites. Mqurice

To: TobagoJack who wrote (58011)	11/17/2009 12:49:34 AM
From: pogohere	Respond to of 217559

It seems that those wedded to and thinking along the lines of what seems to me to be the passing paradigm, i.e. China exports and finances, US et al imports and borrows fail to take account of asymmetric responses, responses that are calculated not just to ward off the obvious challenge, but to leverage advantages that accrue at many levels and removes. E.g: China’s New Missile May Create a ‘No-Go Zone’ for U.S. Fleet "Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- China’s military is close to fielding the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile, according to U.S. Navy intelligence. The missile, with a range of almost 900 miles (1,500 kilometers), would be fired from mobile, land-based launchers and is “specifically designed to defeat U.S. carrier strike groups,” the Office of Naval Intelligence reported. Five of the U.S. Navy’s 11 carriers are based in the Pacific and operate freely in international waters near China. Their mission includes defending Taiwan should China seek to exercise by force its claim to the island democracy, which it considers a breakaway province. The missile could turn this region into a “no-go zone” for U.S. carriers, said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments in Washington. . . . An article in the May 2009 edition of Proceedings, a magazine published by the U.S. Naval Institute, said the missile “could alter the rules in the Pacific and place U.S. Navy carrier strike groups in jeopardy.” “The mere perception that China might have an anti-ship ballistic missile capability could be a game-changer, with profound consequences for deterrence, military operations and the balance of power in the Western Pacific,” the article said. Paul Giarra, a defense consultant who studies China’s weapons, called the missile “a remarkably asymmetric Chinese attempt to control the sea from the shore.” “No American military operations -- air or ground -- are feasible in a region where the U.S. Navy cannot operate,” Giarra, president of Global Strategies and Transformation, based in Herndon, Virginia, said in an e-mail." bloomberg.com see: Figure 4(sketch) and p.16 on asymmetry defenselink.mil Many analysts are thinking from within the failed paradigm(s) of the Anglo-American money-as-debt system and can't imagine that the Chinese, for instance, can see that the US is bent on bringing the US$ down at essentially any cost, US rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. I don't live in Asia, never have and don't speak Chinese, so I am chary about deciding what China's leaders think and imagine, or that they fail to see and respond to what is obvious. But even I can see that the Chinese are responding to the passing of the old paradigm (cited above) as they buy resources such as oil, metals, etc., as fast as possible while working fastidiously to render the US's traditional means of defending its international supply lines ineffective. It doesn't all happen overnight, but most likely it does happen asymmetrically.