They already took much of our defence tech, for free. Why would they pay for it?
One of many examples:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/02/ST2008040204050.html
So far, they're military spending is a fifth of the US's, - I don't think tech is a big issue for them.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSelling them technology would be a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit. The only solution in the long run is to balance the budget or even generate a budget surplus and to at least start paying down the debt.
Is there any US military tech we could sell to the PRC that is strictly defensive in return for a decrease in our massive debt to them? Or is that suicide? Isn't there anything innocuous but useful enough?
Originally posted by sh76Our military tech is a monopoly. Doesn't that count for something?
Selling them technology would be a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit. The only solution in the long run is to balance the budget or even generate a budget surplus and to at least start paying down the debt.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSure; it counts for something. It helps maintain military superiority and gives out military-industrial complex an edge over those of other countries.
Our military tech is a monopoly. Doesn't that count for something?
I don't think it's worth selling for a little cash.
Here's some post by a dude who claims he has quotes. Unsourced.
The Pentagon adopted the two-war requirement after the Gulf War. It was designed in part to discourage a potential aggressor, such as North Korea, from making trouble for U.S. forces in the region when this country is caught up in a major war elsewhere, such as the Middle East.
Indeed, some speculate that China may try to invade Taiwan if the US is busy in Iraq. Similarly, some published reports have supported fears that Ariel Sharon might spend the last days of his administration pushing Palestinians out of the Territories while the US messes around in Iraq; at least one report claims he would order such an action the day a large-scale invasion takes place. Chances are, we could name a few other countries that might try to use the "preemptive defense" doctrine that Bush has been trying to use on Iraq for months now.
On another note...
"Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism," Rice said
Separately, homeland security adviser Tom Ridge contended: "Clearly the president and everyone is confident that we can deal with the terrorist threat and, if we have to, deal with Iraq as well."
So... ummmm... is Iraq part of the terrorist threat, or a separate issue? Depends who you ask on what day, it seems.
Meanwhile, everyone continues to make decisions for Iraqis and Kurds, while not asking what they'd like to see in a post-Saddam Iraq.
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=364040&hl=Two-war-doctrine-may-be-tested
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyeah. as i said. " ... China ... "
Here's some post by a dude who claims he has quotes. Unsourced.
The Pentagon adopted the two-war requirement after the Gulf War. It was designed in part to discourage a potential aggressor, such as North Korea, from making trouble for U.S. forces in the region when this country is caught up in a major war elsewhere, such as the Middle East.
...[text shortened]...
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=364040&hl=Two-war-doctrine-may-be-tested