No More EU Arms Embargo On China in 2020

Mate... I mean I am another digger.

As to stealth bombers, F-117 and B-2 are incapable of overcoming the air defence systems of China's adversaries. they need something like the F-22 that is capable of low altitude high speed penetration.

Click to expand...

Well yeah but does China really need these capabilities at current moment? Would the money be better spend on technology that can defeat stealth?

Plus, wars are fought between systems of systems, one or two advanced weapon don't guarantee victory, nor do the lack of certain advanced weaponry guarantee defeat.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with that one.
Where the war is fought, why the war is fought and how the war is fought can also effect victor or defeat. Iraq is a good example of why advanced weaponry might not win you a war.

Nethappy said:

Mate... I mean I am another digger.



Well yeah but does China really need these capabilities at current moment? Would the money be better spend on technology that can defeat stealth?

If China plans someday to attack Taiwan is for their best interes to get sealthbombers and attackers, besides stealth attackers like the F-117 may avoid enemy detection and deal considerable damage to ground invasion forces



I fully agree with that one.
Where the war is fought, why the war is fought and how the war is fought can also effect victor or defeat. Iraq is a good example of why advanced weaponry might not win you a war.

Click to expand...

Technology, numbers, expertise, skills, troops morale dind garanteed anything but u have to recognize... helps a lot. besides U.S. and allie forces ar not lossing Iraq war at all you have to know the numbers of the casualties Allied Forces lose nearly 3,500 soldiers and Iraqui losses exed the 500,000 Including soldiers at the beginning and Isurgents now. If U.S. and its allies loss the war will not be a military lost... just like vietnam, in the case of China they need more technology to deal with a country like U.S.A. they are strong cause they have near 2.5 million soldiers (thats scary to be honest). Dispiteless of a jetfighter, attacker or bomber need stealth in order to rise PLAAF both capabilities offensive and defensive.

Casualties are NOT the only indicator of who is winning and who is losing. A textbook example would be Russia vs. Nazis. The Russians had higher casualties than the Nazis, but Russia still won the war.

America is NOT winning the war in Iraq, either. America's goal in Iraq has been changed many times over the past few years, but the current goal is to turn Iraq into a capitalistic democracy allied to America through military means. The alliance part is very important.

Iraq is still not capitalistic, not democratic, and even if Iraq becomes a capitalistic democracy, that does not mean Iraq will be an ally of America.

Read Middle Eastern news to find that Iraqis want America to help Iraqis fix Iraq, but once Iraq is fixed, Iraqis want to go their own way.

Anyhow, I think we are going off topic, so I'll stop.

Nethappy said:

Mate... I mean I am another digger.

Click to expand...

==I know, it's just that with all the politicians use the term "digger" to make themselves sound like "true blue Aussie", and when some one actually calls you a digger, you go "Wut?"

Well yeah but does China really need these capabilities at current moment? Would the money be better spend on technology that can defeat stealth?

Click to expand...

==Offensive capabilities are always needed, a 100% effective defense against something like F-22 would be prohibitively expensive, the best bet for the Chinese would be hitting US airbases in the region.

You know when the EU arms embargo will be lifted? When China's technological capabililties equals or surpasses that of the EU. By then China will have no need for what the EU will have to offer. That's the double-edge sword of playing "follow the leader." It's just like the complaints that China deals and trades with countries that the West has embargos. If China followed lock-step along with Western foreign policy on embargos and sanctions, China would be left with the crumbs after the West gets the best deals. Because it's the US who is the leader that gets to decide when it's all right to trade and deal with a country. So the US will naturally be first with the best trade deals. Just as if there were no embargo, the US would get most of the pay-off with China and not the EU.

AssassinsMace said:

You know when the EU arms embargo will be lifted?

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean China could not get it lifted in other ways. The EU has made it clear that if China changes internally that will help matters as well.

If China followed lock-step along with Western foreign policy on embargos and sanctions, China would be left with the crumbs after the West gets the best deals.

Click to expand...

Embargoes and sanctions don't get you deals. China can have its own foreign policy, but if that clashes with Europe's it can't expect to be rewarded by the EU for that.

China does not need any ´rewards´from a fractious 27 member state entity notoriously being at odds with themselves and militarily completely dependent (...discount the French marginally) on their US hegemon.

Former french minister of defense Alliot-Marie stated in '06 that in five years the entire problem would be probably obsolete in any case since China would have then already roughly reached a comparable technological level. Of course that would not mean that Paris would order their new SSN's in Huludao but regarding dual use machinery the EU will have to find a new regulation...

(In '07 the volume of the annual sino-european trade will surpass that of its US-european counterpart for the first time. Obviously the european business community (especially in Italy, Germany and France) is completely willing to seize the virtually unlimited opportunities of economic cooperation with China but some guys in old US influenced bureaucracies (military, security) are still living in the cold war past...)

China can get the EU arms embargo lifted in multiple ways:

1. China can stay on its present course and continue to overcome EU/US political, economic, and military manipulation, and force the EU/US to accept China as an equal or more. China has been doing this by increasing its international clout (which China has been doing), boosting its economy (which China has been doing), developing its own military technology through internal development and external acquisition from backdoor deals and espionage (which China has been doing), and strengthen its military (which China has been doing). This way, China has been having its cake and eating it.

2. China can yield to EU control, and hope that EU neo-colonialism will treat China better this second time around, but seeing how the EU is doing such a "wonderful" job aiding Africa after slavery and colonialism, I think China should avoid this option.

3. China can stop developing its military and focus on peaceful negotiations to stop threats and invasions, and hope that the EU will accept these negotiations unlike in the past. I have this hunch that this won't work either. :roll:

Seeing how option 2 and 3 will most likely fail, but option 1 has been working spectacularly, I think China is better off and will continue to go with option 1. The best way to deal with a bully is to face him head on. The more you yield to a bully, the more the bully will take advantage of you.

The stronger China develops itself and its foreign relations, while protecting its independence and respecting other nations' internal affairs the more likely China will acquire foreign technological experience, while becoming less dependent on foreign technological experience.

If China becomes complacent, weak, and allows other nations to control China, then China will never acquire foreign technology and will never be able to develop its own technology. On the other hand, if China runs around invading and sanctioning every nation that refuses to yield to Chinese commands and rules, then the world will increasingly dislike China, while openly and secretly working against China, making things more difficult for China.

------------------------------------
Fu: Embargoes and sanctions don't get you deals. China can have its own foreign policy, but if that clashes with Europe's it can't expect to be rewarded by the EU for that.
------------------------------------

Embargoes and sanctions don't get you deals? Tell that to the EU and the US politicians. The same goes for invasions. It may have worked in the past, but in today's world, "third-world nations" have wising up and want fair deals, if not more (especially China). EU/US can have its own foreign policy, but if that clashes with China's, the EU/US cannot expect to be rewarded by China for that. Double-edge swords cut both ways.

Infra_Man99 said:

If China becomes complacent, weak, and allows other nations to control China

Click to expand...

I think you're being paranoid. The EU doesn't want to control China - it isn't comfortable with some of its policies. Would you say China's demands that European states not set up embassies with Taiwan mean that China is "controlling" those countries?

Embargoes and sanctions don't get you deals? Tell that to the EU and the US politicians.

Click to expand...

They can obtain foreign policy goals, such as the end to a nuclear weapons programme, but that's not the same as a financial goal. Unless he was just referring to foreign policy "deals".

The same goes for invasions.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about invasions - where has China been asked to invade anybody?