Ayn Rand Weeps

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ayn Rand Weeps

This is a screenshot of Drudge's site just now.

I remember reading Ayn Rand's outrage at the time about Richard Nixon going to China. She was especially perturbed by the image of a USA President--in Communist China--applauding a ballet of Communist China, knowing what that ballet cost in blood and enslavement.

Here is a picture of a USA President bowing to China and a headline that says: "Obama Gives Communist Leader Lavish State Dinner."

Ayn Rand in not rolling over in her grave.

She is weeping.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It just sets up the inevitable backlash.

--Brant

[Greybird]

Not quite the verbal economy of John 11:35, and assuming by verb tense that Rand is still alive (Neil Schulman might endorse that), but it'll do {rueful smile}

Since Hong Kong essentially took it over a dozen years ago — which system is the one left standing? — the PRC is hardly a "communist" economy any more. Except in name — and in a political structure still ruled by a superstructure of a secret police and arbitrary repression.

That's just as true for the government in Washington, though, as Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, or any air traveler — who must now get Heimatsicherheitsamt permission to fly, as well as be sexually molested, neither of which the Chinese indulge in — could tell you.

Where the difference lies is in China's military empire being wholly internal. (North Korea, as client state, partially excepted.) It doesn't also have forces based in, and either intimidating or angering, 180 other countries. Nor is it running at least four shooting wars, overt and covert.

Without that trillion dollars a year of extra, coerced expense — obligingly subsidized by the Chinese buying rivers of U.S. government debt, at least for now — any economy would comparatively thrive.

A lot has changed since Rand wrote in semi-hysteria about one cynical powermonger meeting another, forty-odd years ago. And much has not. We still have some Objectivists' assumption of greater inherent virtue on the part of "our" powermongers. That, I fear, isn't likely to ever change.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

China is the angel and the USA is the devil?

Gimme a break!

Michael

[Kimmler]

Steve,

China is the angel and the USA is the devil?

Gimme a break!

Michael

There is still mileage in the old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril#American_use

Fu Manchu for President!

[Roger Bissell]

I wouldn't say that the U.S. is the devil and China is the angel. It's more nuanced than that.

I'd say that the U.S. is a formerly capitalist nation gradually transforming into a system of "state capitalism" = "national socialism" = fascism -- while China is a formerly communist nation which is now a fascist/national socialist/state capitalist system, and which may transform further into a largely capitalist system.

It's like two people of relatively similar medium health, where one was formerly robustly healthful but has let himself deteriorate greatly and is on the way downward to even worse health if he doesn't turn himself around -- while the other was formerly in poor health, but has instituted various diet and fitness policies that have gradually improved his health.

In each case, they ~appear~ similar, but one is definitely "going to the devil," while the other is working his way away from it. Granted the latter can backslide in each case, and the former can get his act together and head back toward health. But habits are hard to break.

REB

P.S. -- China apparently discovered America before Europe did. Perhaps it is soon to foreclose on it as well. Working on your Mandarin Chinese, everybody?

[pippi]

I am so sick of this charlatan and his bowing-I hope someone kicks his bent over butt next time it happens. Unbelievable and yes, sad as hell. I am ashamed of him (again).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The thing I find irksome about denigrating the USA while elevating China because of our stupid wars is that China funded them by buying our debt and supplied the war materials for the other sides to boot.

Real capitalists, those folks. Not interested at all in expanding.

Right...

Michael

[jriggenbach]

Outstanding post, Steve. As for the rather obtuse way in which it was "understood" by certain of your readers . . . well, I guess you were expecting that, weren't you?

JR

[Brant Gaede]

It's time to understand without equivocation that the U.S. government is all about aggrandizing state power and shitting all over people all over the world if that helps that. The Chinese government is comparatively feeble hanging on by its fingernails. The real power in China is the military. The military does significant things behind the scenes the civilian leadership is frequently unaware of and hardly cares about. The danger in that area of the world is that the Chinese are absolutely nuts about Taiwan and could go to war over that.

40 years ago in the time of Nixon one could say it was about individual power mongering. Even with Clinton. It was BushII who really let the cat out of the bag after 9/11 and it wasn't just reactive response to that but all aspects of his "Compassionate Conservatism." What happened to that? It's in the government now, taken over by bankers.

--Brant

[Guyau]

Steve and Roger, good reflections.

The photo at the root of this thread is from the Nuclear Security Summit

Pertinent Information

Chinese Nuclear Forces

China’s Noisy Boomers

Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2010

From the Nuclear Posture Review:

The Future of the Triad

After considering a wide range of possible options for the U.S. strategic nuclear posture, including some that involved eliminating a leg of the Triad, the NPR concluded that for planned reductions under New START, the United States should retain a smaller Triad of SLBMs, ICBMs, and heavy bombers. Retaining all three Triad legs will best maintain strategic stability at reasonable cost, while hedging against potential technical problems or vulnerabilities.

Each leg of the Triad has advantages that warrant retaining all three legs at this stage of reductions. Strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs) and the SLBMs they carry represent the most survivable leg of the U.S. nuclear Triad. Today, there appears to be no viable near or mid-term threats to the survivability of U.S. SSBNs, but such threats – or other technical problems – cannot be ruled out over the long term. Single-warhead ICBMs contribute to stability, and like SLBMs are not vulnerable to air defenses. Unlike ICBMs and SLBMs, bombers can be visibly deployed forward, as a signal in crisis to strengthen deterrence of potential adversaries and assurance of allies and partners.

While significantly reducing the size of the technical hedge overall, the United States will retain the ability to “upload” some nuclear warheads as a technical hedge against any future problems with U.S. delivery systems or warheads, or as a result of a fundamental deterioration of the security environment. For example, if there were a problem with a specific ICBM warhead type, it could be taken out of service and replaced with warheads from another ICBM warhead type, and/or nuclear warheads could be up-loaded on SLBMs and/or bombers.

Sustaining Strategic Submarines (SSBNs)

The NPR concluded that ensuring a survivable U.S. response force requires continuous at-sea deployments of SSBNs in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, as well as the ability to surge additional submarines in crisis. To support this requirement, the United States currently has fourteen nuclear-capable Ohio-class SSBNs.

By 2020, Ohio-class submarines will have been in service longer than any previous submarines. Therefore as a prudent hedge, the Navy will retain all 14 SSBNs for the near-term. Depending on future force structure assessments, and on how remaining SSBNs age in the coming years, the United States will consider reducing from 14 to 12 Ohio-class submarines in the second half of this decade. This decision will not affect the number of deployed nuclear warheads on SSBNs.

To maintain an at-sea presence for the long-term, the United States must continue development of a follow-on to the Ohio-class submarine. The first Ohio-class submarine retirement is planned for 2027. Since the lead times associated with designing, building, testing, and deploying new submarines are particularly long, the Secretary of Defense has directed the Navy to begin technology development of an SSBN replacement.

Today, there appears to be no credible near or mid-term threats to the survivability of U.S. SSBNs. However, given the stakes involved, the Department of Defense will continue a robust SSBN Security Program that aims to anticipate potential threats and develop appropriate countermeasures to protect current and future SSBNs.

A “DeMIRVed” ICBM Force

Today, the United States has 450 deployed silo-based Minuteman III ICBMs, each with one to three warheads. The NPR considered the type and number of ICBMs needed for stable deterrence, and to serve as a hedge against any future vulnerability of U.S. SSBNs.

The United States will “deMIRV” all deployed ICBMs, so that each Minuteman III ICBM has only one nuclear warhead. (A “MIRVed” ballistic missile carries Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs). “DeMIRVing” will reduce each missile to a single warhead.) This step will enhance the stability of the nuclear balance by reducing the incentives for either side to strike first.

ICBMs provide significant advantages to the U.S. nuclear force posture, including extremely secure command and control, high readiness rates, and relatively low operating costs. The Department of Defense will continue the Minuteman III Life Extension Program with the aim of keeping the fleet in service to 2030, as mandated by Congress. Although a decision on any follow-on ICBM is not needed for several years, studies to inform that decision are needed now.

Accordingly, the Department of Defense will begin initial study of alternatives in fiscal years (FY) 2011 and 2012. This study will consider a range of possible deployment options, with the objective of defining a cost-effective approach that supports continued reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons while promoting stable deterrence.

A Smaller and Highly Capable Nuclear Bomber Force

The United States currently has 76 B-52H bombers and 18 B-2 bombers that can be equipped with nuclear weapons. The NPR determined that the Air Force will retain nuclear-capable bombers, while converting some B-52Hs to a conventional-only role.

There are two principal reasons to retain nuclear-capable – or more accurately dual-capable – bombers. First, this capability provides a rapid and effective hedge against technical challenges with another leg of the Triad, as well as geopolitical uncertainties. Second, nuclear-capable bombers are important to extended deterrence of potential attacks on U.S. allies and partners. Unlike ICBMs and SLBMs, heavy bombers can be visibly forward deployed, thereby signaling U.S. resolve and commitment in crisis.

U.S. dual-capable heavy bombers will not be placed on full-time nuclear alert, and so will provide additional conventional firepower. The value of heavy bombers has been demonstrated multiple times since World War II, including in Desert Storm, Kosovo, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom. The Department of Defense (DoD) will invest more than $1 billion over the next five years to support upgrades to the B-2 stealth bomber. These enhancements will help sustain survivability and improve mission effectiveness.

DoD is studying the appropriate mix of long-range strike capabilities, including heavy bombers as well as non-nuclear prompt global strike, in follow-on analysis to the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review and the NPR. This analysis will affect the Department’s FY 2012 budget proposal. In addition, the Air Force will conduct an assessment of alternatives to inform decisions in FY 2012 about whether and (if so) how to replace the current air-launched cruise missile (ALCM), which will reach the end of its service life later in the next decade.

DoD is also studying emerging challenges in the defense industrial base. As commitments are made to life extend or replace current weapons, challenges are likely to emerge that could impair needed progress. Steps can be taken now to mitigate some of these risks. An example is in the production of solid rocket motors. Across the U.S. Government, there are three users of the solid rocket motor industry: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for shuttle boosters; the Air Force for Minuteman III, and the Navy for Trident II D-5. None of them has immediate plans for a new large solid rocket motor design. With current plans to sustain the Minuteman III and Trident II strategic missiles for at least another two decades, the nation will need technically skilled personnel to address the unknown future challenges associated with the aging of these systems. In order to revive the health of this industry, a research and development program is being initiated that focuses on commonality between the Military Departments and joint scalable flight test demonstrations.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So you guys really think the Chinese government is no longer interested in conquering the world?

Or not a threat?

It's a shame I speak Portuguese. I shoulda' done Chinese. In the worst economic case, I'd always have a language teaching job in the future...

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Tch-Tch, Michael. How naieve can you be? All sophisticated, clear-thinking “libertarians” know that there’s no fundamental difference between the governments of the United States and China.

Let’s waste another meaningless thread debating with brain-dead libertarian ideologues about how evil America is just as bad as every thug nation in the world. . . Yeah, right.

I have better things to do. Hopefully OL’ers with any genuine contact with the real world also have better things to do.

Your original post was excellent. The responses--with a couple of exceptions--all too predictable and mostly disgusting.

[Guyau]

Michael,

Our Defense planners do not rely on words or ceremony. We judge by foreign capabilities and maneuvers. We plan for and weigh all contingencies, all possible threats. Defense is not asleep nor in the dark. Neither is their Commander in Chief.*

To the economic side, I think as a rule of thumb that trade makes for peace.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I agree with this. I have a lot of faith in the defensive capabilities of our military.

And I agree that trade makes for peace.

With a country as big as China, it also makes for exporting our own inflation, which is what I believe Nixon ultimately went after over there. And some other goodies crony capitalists like.

But these speculations presume that we will continue as we are. It will be interesting in see what happens when really high inflation hits. I believe there is a serious threat of all hell breaking loose, but maybe I am wrong. (I hope I am.)

Regardless. Nothing in my book justifies a USA President in a pose of bowing to a Chinese Communist dictator.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

(this posting replaced by the re-edited version below)

Edited January 19, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Jerry Biggers]

Tch-Tch, Michael. How naieve can you be? All sophisticated, clear-thinking “libertarians” know that there’s no fundamental difference between the governments of the United States and China.

Let’s waste another meaningless thread debating with brain-dead libertarian ideologues about how evil America is just as bad as every thug nation in the world. . . Yeah, right.

I have better things to do. Hopefully OL’ers with any genuine contact with the real world also have better things to do.

Your original post was excellent. The responses--with a couple of exceptions--all too predictable and mostly disgusting.

I would like to believe that China will continue down the road to a total laissez faire economy. I would like to believe that China's government leaders, the Communist Party (which still preaches Maoism/Marxism/Leninism) are really closet libertarians. I would like to believe that the Red Army has merely peaceful and defensive intentions. But I don't believe them.

They recently announced the development of a "supercarrier-destroying" missile. Only the U.S. has a supercarrier and apparently it does not have an adequate defense against such a missile. They just announced (for something for Secretary of Defense Gates to mull over on his recent visit there) that they have, or will soon have, a stealth capable jet fighter that may be the equal(surprise! It's the spitting image of our own most advanced fighter! Nahh, probably just a coincidence!) of our most current and projected fighters (You know, the one that Gates and Obama say we don't need).EDIT: I forgot to mention that the Defense Department states that every day, there are over 1,000 hacking attempts originating from China to break into the Department's databases.

At the same time, China provides North Korea with 80% of their trade and could end North Korea as a credible threat if it wanted to. It clearly does not.

By the way, most of our electronics and computer-related materials are now built in China. Suppose, the Chinese decide that they are going to present Taiwan with an ultimatum: relinquish your sovereignty, "Hong Kong" style, or we will use military force to achieve that end. Suppose the U.S. opposes this move by China, and China responds by cutting-off high-tech exports to the U.S. Can our economy, let alone our military, survive very long without these supplies?.

But, I suppose the Chi-Coms may really be closet Objectivists or libertarians. Maybe that's not Mao's portrait hanging in Tiananmen Square. It's their "John Galt."

Edited January 18, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Roger Bissell]

Tch-Tch, Michael. How naieve can you be? All sophisticated, clear-thinking “libertarians” know that there’s no fundamental difference between the governments of the United States and China.

Let’s waste another meaningless thread debating with brain-dead libertarian ideologues about how evil America is just as bad as every thug nation in the world. . . Yeah, right.

I have better things to do. Hopefully OL’ers with any genuine contact with the real world also have better things to do.

Your original post was excellent. The responses--with a couple of exceptions--all too predictable and mostly disgusting.

[biting my tongue/fingers, to refrain from answering the button-pushing rhetoric]...

Evil is as evil does. A basically good nation, in its origins, can squander its moral capital and dilute its virtues to the point that it has crippled the security, the freedom, and the prosperity of its people. IMO, that's evil. It's not an accident that the U.S. has been sinking lower and lower in international freedom indexes in recent years.

We are committing national suicide. Isn't that evil? I thought that Objectivists believe that, of all the evils, you could commit, suicide was beyond the pale. Even worse than murder. Doesn't that make us more evil than countries that are ~not~ committing national suicide?

This is not a permanent, irreversible judgment. Just an appraisal of where we're at. We wouldn't be a debtor nation to China and worried about our President bowing to other heads of state, if we hadn't deliberately shot ourselves in the foot, over and over, for decades. And shooting yourself in the foot is evil, too, isn't it?

Your friendly neighborhood, "brain dead libertarian ideologue,"

REB

[Selene]

[Greybird]

China is the angel and the USA is the devil? Gimme a break!

Has your reading comprehension failed, or had you simply not had your coffee yet?

One has an internal empire, one also has an external empire. Both have the secret-police structure, it's only that those in charge on "our side" haven't had the fortitude to be forthright about it.

If it wasn't clear, I despise both regimes. They both deal out death, unapologetically, only on different targets.

You take a nuanced response and find the first opportunity to avoid talking seriously about it. As Jeff rightly observed, I shouldn't be surprised by now.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Greybird

[Greybird]

So you guys really think the Chinese government is no longer interested in conquering the world? Or not a threat?

Nor did I, as one of "those guys," say either of these things. As for being a threat, anything can be ginned up with sufficient propaganda — look at the few hundred activists, if even that many remain, in "al-Qaeda," which more and more looks like a figment of the CIA's imagination as to being an actual organization.

China has an actual, verifiable military, including a navy, on which they spend $80 billion annually. That the U.S.'s formal military budget of $800 billion is, oh, slightly larger than that might give some of us pause.

And as for conquering the world, why should they try? When everything down to our Fannie Mae's housing-mortgage debt is handed to them as leverage? And when governments all over Europe are slavering to do so as well, even the basket case of Greece, the other day? "We" are busily handing disruptive forces to the Chinese oligarchs.

As for Hardin, I'm not wasting a message slot on more neocon ravings.

[PDS]

China is the angel and the USA is the devil? Gimme a break!

Has your reading comprehension failed, or had you simply not had your coffee yet?

One has an internal empire, one also has an external empire. Both have the secret-police structure, it's only that those in charge on "our side" haven't had the fortitude to be forthright about it.

If it wasn't clear, I despise both regimes. They both deal out death, unapologetically, only on different targets.

You take a nuanced response and find the first opportunity to avoid talking seriously about it. I shouldn't be surprised by now.

I know every time I think of the Bill of Rights, that utopia known as China comes immediately to mind.

[Selene]

Points of information...

Just for the record...

People can exit China at will correct?

I mean their guns face out defensively against the world...correct?

Surely, their borders are open, just like ours...correct?

[kiaer.ts]

[biting my tongue/fingers, to refrain from answering the button-pushing rhetoric]...

Evil is as evil does. A basically good nation, in its origins, can squander its moral capital and dilute its virtues to the point that it has crippled the security, the freedom, and the prosperity of its people. IMO, that's evil. It's not an accident that the U.S. has been sinking lower and lower in international freedom indexes in recent years.

We are committing national suicide. Isn't that evil? I thought that Objectivists believe that, of all the evils, you could commit, suicide was beyond the pale. Even worse than murder. Doesn't that make us more evil than countries that are ~not~ committing national suicide?

This is not a permanent, irreversible judgment. Just an appraisal of where we're at. We wouldn't be a debtor nation to China and worried about our President bowing to other heads of state, if we hadn't deliberately shot ourselves in the foot, over and over, for decades. And shooting yourself in the foot is evil, too, isn't it?

Your friendly neighborhood, "brain dead libertarian ideologue,"

REB

As usual, Roger speaks for me.

I started reading Jane Jacob's last book, Dark Age Ahead, last night at bedtime. Scarier and more attention grabbing than any thriller I've read in the last few years. All about shooting yourself in the foot - or more precisely the brain, and ending up so bad off you don't even realize you've lobotomized yourself.

Read the first chapter. She describes how China went from world power on the threshold of colonizing the Americas to a backwater because of the rule of two men. The US in the 21st century sounds like China in the 15th.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

I agree about national suicide being evil.

btw - You sure have changed. I remember when you openly preached that the best response to the possibility of an Iranian threat was to nuke Tehran preemptively to radioactive glass and ask questions later.

Has your opinion mellowed, or does this part of national suicide not count?

Michael