June 14, 20205 yr U.S. Naval Buildup in Indo-Pacific Seen as Warning to 3 aircraft carriers is a heck of a presence Chinahttps://time.com/5852710/u-s-aircraft-carriers-indo-pacific-china/
June 16, 20205 yr North Korea blows up South Korea liaison office: Seoul https://www.foxnews.com/world/after-days-of-threats-north-korea-destroys-inter-korea-liaison-office-report North Korea blew up the office they use for talks with South Korea.
June 16, 20205 yr 11 minutes ago, Toastrel said: North Korea blows up South Korea liaison office: Seoul https://www.foxnews.com/world/after-days-of-threats-north-korea-destroys-inter-korea-liaison-office-report North Korea blew up the office they use for talks with South Korea. If only we still had access to NK Done Deal thread on the old board. There was wild celebration and gloating over Trump bringing peace to the Korean peninsula and hints that we may have just witnessed one of the great masterclasses of all time.
June 16, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, DEagle7 said: While we're at it: Good news for anyone who bet on WW3 for July Up to 20 dead
June 16, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, mr_hunt said: so who's gonna re-create the north korea : done deal! thread for this board? Do it. You're the most obvious choice. Make sure to add "originally created by" in the title.
June 17, 20205 yr Author LINK The White House steps up trade aggression, calls for 'broader reset' of global tariffs Ben Winck 4 hours ago The Trump administration plans to call for a "broad reset" of World Trade Organization tariffs in its latest conflict with the global authority. The US levies a mere 3.4% average rate, while the European Union and China charge 5.1% and 10%, respectively, under WTO rule. The organization's tariff rates "no longer reflect members' policy choices and economic conditions," US trade representative Robert Lighthizer said in prepared remarks seen by Bloomberg. The WTO's action also prevents "the United States from taking action to address unfair trade practices that hurt US workers," he said. The White House plans to escalate its tensions with the World Trade Organization by calling for a "broad reset" of its global tariff rates, US trade representative Robert Lighthizer is set to tell House representatives on Wednesday. The Trump administration has long butted heads with the WTO, repeatedly accusing the organization of charging unfair duties to US exporters. The White House plans to argue that a reset is needed to level the playing field and bring other developed economies' rates more in line with the US's. "Currently, outdated tariff determinations are locked in place that no longer reflect members' policy choices and economic conditions," Lighthizer said in prepared remarks seen by Bloomberg. "Many countries with large and developed economies maintain very high bound tariff rates, far above those levied by the United States." The US's average rate sits at 3.4%, among the world's lowest. For comparison, the European Union's is 5.1% and China's is 10%. India holds the highest, at 51%. The WTO and its tariff policies "created new obligations out of thin air, preventing the United States from taking action to address unfair trade practices that hurt US workers," the trade representative said. Lighthizer is expected to deliver his statement to the House Ways and Means Committee Wednesday afternoon. He will highlight that the US is moving forward in trade talks with the EU, Britain, China, Japan, and Kenya, and that the tariff rate disparity sets the country up for failure when seeking fair deals. The WTO and its tariff policies "created new obligations out of thin air, preventing the United States from taking action to address unfair trade practices that hurt US workers," the trade representative said. The proposed tariff overhaul arrives as the coronavirus pandemic tanks US trade activity. The nation's goods and services deficit widened to $49.4 billion in April as manufacturing and global travel froze. US exports tanked 20.5%, its biggest decline in data going back to 1992. Imports posted a record decline of 13.7%. President Donald Trump campaigned heavily on a desire to boost national trade, yet the combination of the US-China trade war and the coronavirus have all but stifled such hopes.
June 17, 20205 yr Author LINK At least 20 Indian soldiers have died after a "violent face-off" with Chinese troops along the countries' de facto border in the Himalayas late Monday, the Indian army has said. The incident occurred during a "deescalation process" underway in the Galwan Valley in the disputed Aksai Chin-Ladakh area, where a large troop build-up has reportedly been taking place for weeks now on both sides of the border, before senior military commanders began talks earlier this month. The Indian army had earlier said three soldiers had died, but added on Tuesday that a further 17 troops "who were critically injured in the line of duty at the standoff location and exposed to sub-zero temperatures in the high altitude terrain have succumbed to their injuries." The deaths are the first military casualties along the two countries' disputed border for more than 40 years. According to the earlier Indian army statement, there was loss of life "on both sides," but it did not specify any number of Chinese casualties. Senior military officials from both sides are currently meeting to defuse the situation, the statement added. "India and China have been discussing through military and diplomatic channels the de-escalation of the situation in the border area in Eastern Ladakh," said India's External Affairs Ministry spokesman Anurag Srivastava on Tuesday. He said senior commanders had "agreed on a process for such de-escalation" during a "productive meeting" on Saturday, June 6, and ground commanders had met regarding the implementation. "While it was our expectation that this would unfold smoothly, the Chinese side departed from the consensus to respect the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Galwan Valley," he said in the statement. "Both sides suffered casualties that could have been avoided had the agreement at the higher level been scrupulously followed by the Chinese side," he added. "Given its responsible approach to border management, India is very clear that all its activities are always within the Indian side of the LAC. We expect the same of the Chinese side. We remain firmly convinced of the need for the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the border areas and the resolution of differences through dialogue. At the same time, we are also strongly committed to ensuring India's sovereignty and territorial integrity." Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh met with the External Affairs Minister, the Chief of Defense Staff, and the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force and to review the "operational situation in Eastern Ladakh" earlier on Tuesday, the army said. At a regular news conference Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said that on Monday, "Indian troops seriously violated our consensus and twice crossed the border line for illegal activities and provoked and attacked Chinese personnel which lead to serious physical conflict between the two sides." "China has lodged strong protest and representation with the India side, and we once again we solemnly ask the India side to follow our consensus and strictly regulate its front line troops and do not cross the line and do not stir up troubles or take unilateral moves that may complicate matters," Zhao added. "We both agreed to resolve this issue through dialogue and consolation and make efforts for easing the situation and upholding peace and tranquility in the border area." Zhao did not comment on whether there had been any Chinese casualties. China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) released a statement Tuesday night calling on the Indian army to immediately stop what it described as "provocative actions" and to "resolve the issue through the correct track of dialogue and talks." "The sovereignty of the Galwan Valley region has always belonged to China," Zhang Shuili, the spokesman of the Western Theater said in a statement on China's Ministry of Defense website. "Indian troops violated its commitment, crossed the borderline for illegal activities and deliberately launched provocative attacks." Zhang added that the "serious physical conflict between the two sides" had "resulted in casualties." "We solemnly ask the India side to strictly regulate its front line troops, immediately stop all infringement and provocative actions, go toward the same direction with China, and return to the correct track of dialogue and talks to resolve differences," the statement read. Monday's deaths are the first military casualties along the disputed border for more than four decades, Indian defense experts told CNN. "We have not had casualties on the Line of Actual Control for at least 45 years," said Happymon Jacob, an associate professor and political analyst at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. "This is perhaps a game-changer. This is perhaps the beginning of the end of the rapport that India has enjoyed with China for 45 years." Former Indian Chief of Army Staff, General Bikram Singh, also confirmed to CNN this is the first such deadly incident in the last 45 years. Tensions have been growing in the Himalayas along one of the world's longest land borders since last month, with New Delhi and Beijing both accusing the other of overstepping the LAC that separates the two nuclear armed neighbors. The territory has long been disputed, erupting into numerous minor conflicts and diplomatic spats since a bloody war between the two countries in 1962. The LAC runs between Chinese-controlled Aksai Chin and the rest of the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region. The rough border line was the result of the India China border dispute in 1962, but neither side agrees exactly where it is or how long it is. Aksai Chin is administered by China as part of Xinjiang, but is also claimed by the Indian government as part of Ladakh. The reported troop build up had left many worried about the potential for a confrontation, particularly as both Chinese and Indian media have published jingoistic calls for action. Both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have built public support in large part on nationalism and a promise of future greatness. This often translates into aggressive rhetoric, particularly when playing to a domestic audience. Such an approach was evidenced in Chinese coverage of the PLA maneuvers in the Himalayas. Equally, despite Delhi's public calls for easing tensions, leading Indian government figures have struck an aggressive tone, with Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah telling a rally of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) earlier this month that "any intrusion into the the borders of India will be punished." "Some used to say that US and Israel were the only countries which were willing and capable of avenging every drop of the blood of their soldiers," Shah said. "(Modi) has added India to that list.'' Writing for CNN this month, retired Indian general Singh said that part of the problem is that the de facto border, the LAC, is so ill defined. "At strategic and operational levels, both militaries have exercised restraint," he said. "However, at the tactical level, face-offs occur due to differing perceptions of where the actual border is as the LAC is not delineated on the ground. While face-offs get resolved locally, those related to the building of infrastructure, such as roads and defence fortifications, invariably take longer and require a combination of military and diplomatic initiatives." Speaking before the most recent clash, former Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said she hoped the current crisis won't lead to an abandonment of long-standing diplomatic negotiations over the disputed territory. "Even if tensions rise and tempers fray, they would do well to remember that they have to continue to manage their differences in a grown-up way because armed clashes and military combat can have extremely serious repercussions for the stability of the region going beyond the ambit of the purely bilateral relationship between the two countries," she said.
June 17, 20205 yr 55 minutes ago, Toastrel said: I'm ready to go back to murder hornets That was a filler episode.
June 22, 20205 yr Author Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to spend money to defend NATO that the Europeans are unwilling to spend to defend themselves. Why the U.S. Army's New Precision-Strike Missile Such a Big Deal by Kris Osborn The U.S. Army has fired test-shot number three for its fast-emerging Precision-Strike Missile, a new surface-to-surface weapon intended to destroy targets with precision accuracy from ranges as far as 500km. The shot, which took place earlier this year at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona, moved the development of the weapon into a new phase as a next-generation method of pinpointing targets from safer stand-off ranges. The new PrSM is, among other things, intended to replace and improve upon the existing Army Tactical Missile System land-fired missile. The test shot, senior Army leaders described, laid the foundation for the Army’s ultimate goal for the new system. "The current missiles can go about 350km and this will go beyond 500km eventually. We are almost doubling the range with existing launchers so we are not having to invest in new launchers. We can now put two missiles in the launcher as opposed to what we can do now which is one,” Gen. John Murray, Commander, Army Futures Command, told TNI in an interview. Murray described the Lockheed-built weapon as the Army’s post INF solution, meaning the service’s need to engineer medium-range missiles in response to Russia’s violation of the well-known previous treaty limiting testing and development of those kinds of weapons. Medium range land-fired missiles enable Russia to hold NATO countries in Europe at risk, given that they operate at ranges of 500km or more. The Army’s new land missile able to travel those distances is, quite simply, intended to "out range” the enemy, as Army weapons developers explain it. An ability to hold an approaching force at risk, while being at lower risk of an enemy strike of counterattack. The U.S. Army was among the first-ever to deploy land-fired precision weaponry such as the GPS-guided Excalibur precision 155m artillery round and the longer-range Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, or GMLRS. These weapons, which were first used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2006 through 2009 timeframe, ushered in the advent of a new kind of weapon engineered to give Commanders more attack options and pinpoint enemy targets with great precision from long distances. In fact, among other things, GMLRS successfully destroyed Taliban targets in Afghanistan. While precision fires of this kind would, quite naturally, be useful in full-scale mechanized force-on-force combat—they proved worthwhile in counterinsurgency attacks as Taliban and Iraqi insurgents deliberately blended in with innocent civilians among local populations. As a result, precision attacks became necessary, even vital, to U.S. combat success. Such a phenomenon is of course equally applicable to major warfare scenarios, given the increase in global urbanization and the need for armored forces to advance through and occupy cities. Therefore, something that is both longer range, and precision-guided, brings commanders newer, more advanced attack options. As for the PrSM guidance, it uses GPS and inertial measurement unit technology, however it would certainly not be surprising if the Army were looking at both hardening its guidance networks and also exploring non-GPS, less-jammable targeting technologies. Since the initial combat debut of these weapons, however, the fast pace of global technological change and weapons proliferation has fostered a circumstance wherein the U.S. is no longer among the few combat forces to have these kinds of weapons. As a result, the U.S. Army sees a clear need to substantially advance offensive ground-attack technology.
June 28, 20205 yr On 6/17/2020 at 4:57 PM, TEW said: It’s about time the world stood up to China. They'd be a little late to the game. The best time do that was about 15-20 years ago when China didn't have so much leverage.
June 28, 20205 yr 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: They'd be a little late to the game. The best time do that was about 15-20 years ago when China didn't have so much leverage. China has less leverage now than they did then.
June 29, 20205 yr Author 8 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: They'd be a little late to the game. The best time do that was about 15-20 years ago when China didn't have so much leverage. So what leverage do they have now that they didn't then?
June 29, 20205 yr Speaking of China, major flooding going on right now. Major flooding. Like, the worst in at least 80 years. There’s actually some concern that the 3 Gorges Dam might fail.
June 29, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, Mlodj said: So what leverage do they have now that they didn't then? They have much greater economic and technological leverage now. I mean, if you want to really dig back, Nixon probably should've never given them a boost out of self-isolation.
June 29, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, Mlodj said: So what leverage do they have now that they didn't then? About a trillion in treasuries last I checked.
June 29, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, TEW said: About a trillion in treasuries last I checked. That they’re not going to be able to do anything about. 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: They have much greater economic and technological leverage now. I mean, if you want to really dig back, Nixon probably should've never given them a boost out of self-isolation.
June 29, 20205 yr 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: They have much greater economic and technological leverage now. I mean, if you want to really dig back, Nixon probably should've never given them a boost out of self-isolation. By then though Europe was mostly rebuilt and the world market for American goods was diminishing. China was viewed as an untapped market we could dominate if they let us in. Well, as it turns out, they only let our I.P. in...lol.
June 29, 20205 yr 3 minutes ago, PoconoDon said: By then though Europe was mostly rebuilt and the world market for American goods was diminishing. China was viewed as an untapped market we could dominate if they let us in. Well, as it turns out, they only let our I.P. in...lol. The theory was that opening up trade would mean westernizing their society and government. It was a smart gamble at the time. The problem is we didn’t cut the cord 30 years ago when they had made absolutely no effort at reform.
June 29, 20205 yr 5 minutes ago, TEW said: The theory was that opening up trade would mean westernizing their society and government. It was a smart gamble at the time. The problem is we didn’t cut the cord 30 years ago when they had made absolutely no effort at reform. That's a fair assessment. It's just a shame that from then until now, China/US relations is a boat load of would, coulda, shoulda, that has yielded primarily negative outcomes for us.
Create an account or sign in to comment