Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Info from Ralph Sawyer re his history of warfare in China

Expand Messages
  • Douglas Henderson
    I had emailed him about the anticipated publication date He responded Summer of 2008. But in the interim the Tao of Deception: Unorthodox Warfare in Historic
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 18 7:46 PM
      I had emailed him about the anticipated publication date

      He responded

      Summer of 2008. But in the interim the Tao of Deception: Unorthodox
      Warfare in Historic and Modern China has recently been released, and
      as you can tell from the title, it focuses upon Sun-tzu's concept
      throughout history, including recent PRC formulations. Although a
      450 page hardbound, Basic kept the list price at $ 30, which means
      about $ 26 or so from the online booksellers. And along the line of
      contemporary scenarios based upon the classic Chinese military
      writings, my (deliberately provocative, unclassified) "Chinese
      Strategic Power: Myth, Intent, and Projections" -- a paper
      originally presented at a Continental Defense Conference last year --
      is now available online from the Journal of Military and Strategic
      Studies as a free PDF download. (www.jmss.org winter 2007 issue ).
      Reprints of last year's Sun-tzu conference report in Yang-chou are
      also circulating these days and may be of interest to your people,
      as well as the spate of articles in Chun-shih K'o-hsueh on applying
      Sun-tzu's thought to contemporary warfighting, especially
      cyberwarfare and space.

      sawyer


      "D. Henderson" wrote:
      Thanks for the information. I was about to post that it was delayed
      on my egroup (without going into details) but your date puzzled me,
      by "next summer" do you mean Summer 2007 or summer 2008.

      Thanks!

      end quoted

      Regards
      Doug
    • dej2_
      Thank you for the post! I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the worst.. preparing for war despite working and hoping for peace. At this point it
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 4, 2007
        Thank you for the post!

        I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the worst.."preparing
        for war despite working and hoping for peace."

        At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it esclated
        untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish this
        again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
        accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East oil
        would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the second
        cold war.

        http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
      • Wil
        The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically advanced economy that can very
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 5, 2007
          The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative fuel that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is more of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be drained from their country without establishing a diversified economy. How will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
           
          In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US of oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most technologically advance military to deal with them.
           
          I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast majority of human history, China and India have had the largest economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost that role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.


          dej2_ <dej2_@...> wrote:
          Thank you for the post!

          I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the worst.."preparing
          for war despite working and hoping for peace."

          At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it esclated
          untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish this
          again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
          accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East oil
          would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the second
          cold war.

          http://www.jmss. org/2007/ 2007winter/ articlesbody7. htm




          Thanks,
          Wil


          Got a little couch potato?
          Check out fun summer activities for kids.

        • able2010
          ... worst.. preparing ... esclated ... this ... second ... After reading that article, I didn t get that impression at all. The article talks about possible
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 21, 2007
            --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "dej2_" <dej2_@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thank you for the post!
            >
            > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
            worst.."preparing
            > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
            >
            > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
            esclated
            > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish
            this
            > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
            > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East oil
            > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
            second
            > cold war.
            >
            > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
            >


            After reading that article, I didn't get that impression at all. The
            article talks about possible guerilla style warfare by China either
            against Taiwan and/or the U.S.

            Wars have often been fought over resources:

            http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=11366§ionID=43

            In some ways, I can see that the current China-U.S. situation is
            similar to the situation between that of Japan and the U.S. prior to
            world war II. However, neither article refers to the issue of
            alliances. If China was to go to war with the U.S., it wouldn't be
            impossible to go it alone, but China would most likely need the
            support of Russia and/or other countries, one way or another, before
            conflict started.

            Rodney
          • realitytd
            I m not sure how we could recover from the loss of imported oil. We are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are less diversified then we
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 21, 2007
              I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of imported oil. We
              are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are less
              diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less diversified
              each day as industry leaves the country.

              We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
              quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
              nowhere near to an alternative fuel.

              Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
              punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very capable
              of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine getting
              anything done with the Clintons in charge?

              Tim


              --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@...> wrote:
              >
              > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat
              to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
              advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative fuel
              that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is more
              of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be drained
              from their country without establishing a diversified economy. How
              will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
              >
              > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US of
              oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
              technologically advance military to deal with them.
              >
              > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
              majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
              economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost that
              role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
              >
              >
              > dej2_ <dej2_@...> wrote: Thank you for the post!
              >
              > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
              worst.."preparing
              > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
              >
              > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
              esclated
              > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish
              this
              > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
              > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
              oil
              > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
              second
              > cold war.
              >
              > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Thanks,
              > Wil
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Got a little couch potato?
              > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
              >
            • Wil
              It would appear we have very different views of the world. I agree with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic question is “of what
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 22, 2007
                It would appear we have very different views of the world. I agree with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic question is “of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we deal with it?”
                 
                Assume the loss of oil is from some natural disaster that strikes the Middle East and wipes out world oil supply. All the nations in the world will gear up to control what remains, the USA and its allies would still hold its advantage. The same would apply if through acts of terrorism or any other means the world oil supply becomes restricted beyond the ability of the economy to adjust to the effects. Of what strategic threat is it then if the USA and its allies along with every other nation on the plant suffer a sudden loss of oil? Importing oil is economically the same as importing any other low skilled product.
                 
                The statement about the USA becoming less diversified I just don’t understand.  According to the CIA World Fact Book, The Economist, and pretty much every economist and economic analysis I’ve viewed points to the USA being the most diversified economy on the planet. We don’t just make one thing we make the widest variety of any nation.
                 
                As far as manufacturing is concerned I think you may also be mistaken.  Yes, low technology and labor intensive manufacturing jobs are going to less developed countries, but by far leading edge technologies and manufacturing are developed in the USA .
                 
                In terms of economics and technology you should not base your strategic analysis on the state of technology but it must be based on the dynamics of technology. I would rather loose jobs in a technology that is becoming diffused throughout the world economy in exchange for new technologies and advance manufacturing methods that provide me with advantage other countries do not have.
                 
                Your not suggesting that we should have fought tooth and nail to keep VHS tapes or eight track tape production in the USA are you? The shifting of jobs is a natural occurrence in economics and those civilizations better able to adapt quickly to new technologies have survived and thrived. Witness the Romans. If I were you I would not try to stifle a natural economic occurrence or you are bound to usher in the decline of your country, witness the Chinese and the result of their experiment into walling off their country and forbidding foreign commerce, they are only now trying to come out of those centuries of decline.
                 
                As far as bureaucracy is concerned I can only say bureaucracy is bureaucracy, and every civilization has one. Ours seems to be doing pretty well compared to North Korea ’s. Its even doing pretty well compared to France and Germany .  In any case I’m not sure if you are posing a strategic issue here, perhaps you could clarify that.
                 
                As far as Clintons and strategy I can say that during his entire administration they managed to keep North Korea from building a nuclear bomb. He at least slowed them down… I believe President Bush made them shift to high gear along with Iran . We all know under whose watch North Korea detonated a nuclear device.
                 
                Wil

                realitytd <timojona@...> wrote:
                I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of imported oil. We
                are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are less
                diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less diversified
                each day as industry leaves the country.

                We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
                quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
                nowhere near to an alternative fuel.

                Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
                punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very capable
                of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine getting
                anything done with the Clintons in charge?

                Tim

                --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, Wil <wilm123@... > wrote:
                >
                > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat
                to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
                advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative fuel
                that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is more
                of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be drained
                from their country without establishing a diversified economy. How
                will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
                >
                > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US of
                oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
                technologically advance military to deal with them.
                >
                > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
                majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
                economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost that
                role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
                >
                >
                > dej2_ <dej2_@...> wrote: Thank you for the post!
                >
                > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
                worst.."preparing
                > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
                >
                > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
                esclated
                > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish
                this
                > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
                > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
                oil
                > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
                second
                > cold war.
                >
                > http://www.jmss. org/2007/ 2007winter/ articlesbody7. htm
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Thanks,
                > Wil
                >
                > ------------ --------- --------- ---
                > Got a little couch potato?
                > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
                >




                Thanks,
                Wil


                Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

              • realitytd
                Mornin Wil, ... with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic question is of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we deal with
                Message 7 of 9 , Jun 29, 2007
                  Mornin' Wil,

                  --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > It would appear we have very different views of the world. I agree
                  with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic
                  question is "of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we
                  deal with it?"
                  >
                  ***That question is one that our "leaders" should be asking. Right
                  now we just are not dealing with it.

                  > Assume the loss of oil is from some natural disaster that strikes
                  the Middle East and wipes out world oil supply. All the nations in
                  the world will gear up to control what remains, the USA and its
                  allies would still hold its advantage. The same would apply if
                  through acts of terrorism or any other means the world oil supply
                  becomes restricted beyond the ability of the economy to adjust to the
                  effects. Of what strategic threat is it then if the USA and its
                  allies along with every other nation on the plant suffer a sudden
                  loss of oil? Importing oil is economically the same as importing any
                  other low skilled product.
                  >

                  ****That is only one of many possible scenarios. While our allies are
                  powerfull many of our enemies control the oil. Our lives and the
                  economy are very disrupted if there's just a small change in the oil
                  supply, we are so dependant on the oil supply a major change might be
                  catastrophic. And, seeing as our preparedness level is nil, even a
                  slow change in the oil supply might hurt us.

                  > The statement about the USA becoming less diversified I just
                  don't understand. According to the CIA World Fact Book, The
                  Economist, and pretty much every economist and economic analysis I've
                  viewed points to the USA being the most diversified economy on the
                  planet. We don't just make one thing we make the widest variety of
                  any nation.
                  >
                  ****No way. And, we make less and less every day. As president
                  Clinton said when faced with the loss of manfacturing (and jobs) in
                  the country: "The service economy will carry us through". If faced
                  with a loss of imported goods we couldn't even make an auto today.

                  I used to travel nationally and internationally and the lack of the
                  duralable goods coming from this country is very noticeable. I
                  presently work at a large particle accelerator at a National
                  Laboratory and we regurally have to locate sources for things that
                  aren't made in this country any more. For instance, vacuum tubes. We
                  use a lot of large ones (1 Mw) and large or small there aren't any
                  made in the US any more. From machine tools to electronics to talent
                  in general we are in decline.

                  We might be diversified as long as we have the wealth and sources to
                  buy imported but it isn't a healthy situation.

                  > As far as manufacturing is concerned I think you may also be
                  mistaken. Yes, low technology and labor intensive manufacturing jobs
                  are going to less developed countries, but by far leading edge
                  technologies and manufacturing are developed in the USA.
                  >
                  ******Less so every day.

                  > In terms of economics and technology you should not base your
                  strategic analysis on the state of technology but it must be based on
                  the dynamics of technology. I would rather loose jobs in a technology
                  that is becoming diffused throughout the world economy in exchange
                  for new technologies and advance manufacturing methods that provide
                  me with advantage other countries do not have.
                  >
                  *****True. but we are loosing both.

                  > Your not suggesting that we should have fought tooth and nail to
                  keep VHS tapes or eight track tape production in the USA are you? The
                  shifting of jobs is a natural occurrence in economics and those
                  civilizations better able to adapt quickly to new technologies have
                  survived and thrived.

                  *****I wouldn't argue with you on that. Except that too many times
                  instead of letting the obsolete evolve it just dies and the
                  replacement is overseas.

                  Witness the Romans. If I were you I would not try to stifle a
                  natural economic occurrence or you are bound to usher in the decline
                  of your country, witness the Chinese and the result of their
                  experiment into walling off their country and forbidding foreign
                  commerce, they are only now trying to come out of those centuries of
                  decline.
                  >

                  ****Good example. Like the Romand we grow decadent and decline but
                  like everything else now, faster.

                  > As far as bureaucracy is concerned I can only say bureaucracy is
                  bureaucracy, and every civilization has one. Ours seems to be doing
                  pretty well compared to North Korea's. Its even doing pretty well
                  compared to France and Germany. In any case I'm not sure if you are
                  posing a strategic issue here, perhaps you could clarify that.
                  >

                  ****You're right bureaucracy is bureaucracy and the best thing you
                  can do is to limit it. But with the US creeping closer to Socialism
                  (Marxism, Liberalism) the US is becoming more bureaucratic and less
                  flexible.

                  > As far as Clintons and strategy I can say that during his entire
                  administration they managed to keep North Korea from building a
                  nuclear bomb. He at least slowed them down… I believe President Bush
                  made them shift to high gear along with Iran. We all know under whose
                  watch North Korea detonated a nuclear device.
                  >

                  ****Clintons "strategy" was to throw money at them to keep them
                  quiet. Under whose watch did they build the bomb? The Clintons
                  accomplished very, very little (positive) and it looks like they will
                  be back.

                  > Wil


                  Well, everything is cyclic and perhaps it will take some hard times
                  to turn the US around.

                  Tim
                  >
                  > realitytd <timojona@...> wrote:
                  > I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of
                  imported oil. We
                  > are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are less
                  > diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less diversified
                  > each day as industry leaves the country.
                  >
                  > We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
                  > quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
                  > nowhere near to an alternative fuel.
                  >
                  > Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
                  > punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very capable
                  > of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine getting
                  > anything done with the Clintons in charge?
                  >
                  > Tim
                  >
                  > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat
                  > to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
                  > advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative fuel
                  > that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is more
                  > of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be
                  drained
                  > from their country without establishing a diversified economy. How
                  > will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
                  > >
                  > > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US of
                  > oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
                  > technologically advance military to deal with them.
                  > >
                  > > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
                  > majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
                  > economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost
                  that
                  > role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > dej2_ <dej2_@> wrote: Thank you for the post!
                  > >
                  > > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
                  > worst.."preparing
                  > > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
                  > >
                  > > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
                  > esclated
                  > > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US
                  accomplish
                  > this
                  > > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source
                  to
                  > > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
                  > oil
                  > > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
                  > second
                  > > cold war.
                  > >
                  > > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Thanks,
                  > > Wil
                  > >
                  > > ---------------------------------
                  > > Got a little couch potato?
                  > > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  > Wil
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
                  >
                • wilm123
                  The effects of imported oil on America s political, economic, social, and military systems has been asked and addressed repeatedly from many different
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 9, 2007
                    The effects of imported oil on America's political, economic, social,
                    and military systems has been asked and addressed repeatedly from
                    many different perspectives. The conclusion repeatedly made is that
                    there is no strategic issue with importing oil and the economic
                    advantages associated with importing the commodity far out way any
                    disadvantage. Political mileage gained by stoking fears about the
                    issue, and national security are two different issues, which are you
                    trying to address with your argument?

                    Yes we are exchanging manufacturing for service jobs but again, of
                    what consequence is it. I believe you are stating observations about
                    our economy in a fashion which portrays them as economic bads when in
                    fact they are economic goods.

                    Sun Tzu makes several statements about the use of your competitors
                    resources and their value, aren't your arguments directly counter to
                    his advice?

                    Wil
                    --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "realitytd" <timojona@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Mornin' Wil,
                    >
                    > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > It would appear we have very different views of the world. I
                    agree
                    > with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic
                    > question is "of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we
                    > deal with it?"
                    > >
                    > ***That question is one that our "leaders" should be asking. Right
                    > now we just are not dealing with it.
                    >
                    > > Assume the loss of oil is from some natural disaster that
                    strikes
                    > the Middle East and wipes out world oil supply. All the nations in
                    > the world will gear up to control what remains, the USA and its
                    > allies would still hold its advantage. The same would apply if
                    > through acts of terrorism or any other means the world oil supply
                    > becomes restricted beyond the ability of the economy to adjust to
                    the
                    > effects. Of what strategic threat is it then if the USA and its
                    > allies along with every other nation on the plant suffer a sudden
                    > loss of oil? Importing oil is economically the same as importing
                    any
                    > other low skilled product.
                    > >
                    >
                    > ****That is only one of many possible scenarios. While our allies
                    are
                    > powerfull many of our enemies control the oil. Our lives and the
                    > economy are very disrupted if there's just a small change in the
                    oil
                    > supply, we are so dependant on the oil supply a major change might
                    be
                    > catastrophic. And, seeing as our preparedness level is nil, even a
                    > slow change in the oil supply might hurt us.
                    >
                    > > The statement about the USA becoming less diversified I just
                    > don't understand. According to the CIA World Fact Book, The
                    > Economist, and pretty much every economist and economic analysis
                    I've
                    > viewed points to the USA being the most diversified economy on the
                    > planet. We don't just make one thing we make the widest variety of
                    > any nation.
                    > >
                    > ****No way. And, we make less and less every day. As president
                    > Clinton said when faced with the loss of manfacturing (and jobs) in
                    > the country: "The service economy will carry us through". If faced
                    > with a loss of imported goods we couldn't even make an auto today.
                    >
                    > I used to travel nationally and internationally and the lack of the
                    > duralable goods coming from this country is very noticeable. I
                    > presently work at a large particle accelerator at a National
                    > Laboratory and we regurally have to locate sources for things that
                    > aren't made in this country any more. For instance, vacuum tubes.
                    We
                    > use a lot of large ones (1 Mw) and large or small there aren't any
                    > made in the US any more. From machine tools to electronics to
                    talent
                    > in general we are in decline.
                    >
                    > We might be diversified as long as we have the wealth and sources
                    to
                    > buy imported but it isn't a healthy situation.
                    >
                    > > As far as manufacturing is concerned I think you may also be
                    > mistaken. Yes, low technology and labor intensive manufacturing
                    jobs
                    > are going to less developed countries, but by far leading edge
                    > technologies and manufacturing are developed in the USA.
                    > >
                    > ******Less so every day.
                    >
                    > > In terms of economics and technology you should not base your
                    > strategic analysis on the state of technology but it must be based
                    on
                    > the dynamics of technology. I would rather loose jobs in a
                    technology
                    > that is becoming diffused throughout the world economy in exchange
                    > for new technologies and advance manufacturing methods that provide
                    > me with advantage other countries do not have.
                    > >
                    > *****True. but we are loosing both.
                    >
                    > > Your not suggesting that we should have fought tooth and nail
                    to
                    > keep VHS tapes or eight track tape production in the USA are you?
                    The
                    > shifting of jobs is a natural occurrence in economics and those
                    > civilizations better able to adapt quickly to new technologies have
                    > survived and thrived.
                    >
                    > *****I wouldn't argue with you on that. Except that too many times
                    > instead of letting the obsolete evolve it just dies and the
                    > replacement is overseas.
                    >
                    > Witness the Romans. If I were you I would not try to stifle a
                    > natural economic occurrence or you are bound to usher in the
                    decline
                    > of your country, witness the Chinese and the result of their
                    > experiment into walling off their country and forbidding foreign
                    > commerce, they are only now trying to come out of those centuries
                    of
                    > decline.
                    > >
                    >
                    > ****Good example. Like the Romand we grow decadent and decline but
                    > like everything else now, faster.
                    >
                    > > As far as bureaucracy is concerned I can only say bureaucracy
                    is
                    > bureaucracy, and every civilization has one. Ours seems to be doing
                    > pretty well compared to North Korea's. Its even doing pretty well
                    > compared to France and Germany. In any case I'm not sure if you
                    are
                    > posing a strategic issue here, perhaps you could clarify that.
                    > >
                    >
                    > ****You're right bureaucracy is bureaucracy and the best thing you
                    > can do is to limit it. But with the US creeping closer to Socialism
                    > (Marxism, Liberalism) the US is becoming more bureaucratic and less
                    > flexible.
                    >
                    > > As far as Clintons and strategy I can say that during his
                    entire
                    > administration they managed to keep North Korea from building a
                    > nuclear bomb. He at least slowed them down… I believe President
                    Bush
                    > made them shift to high gear along with Iran. We all know under
                    whose
                    > watch North Korea detonated a nuclear device.
                    > >
                    >
                    > ****Clintons "strategy" was to throw money at them to keep them
                    > quiet. Under whose watch did they build the bomb? The Clintons
                    > accomplished very, very little (positive) and it looks like they
                    will
                    > be back.
                    >
                    > > Wil
                    >
                    >
                    > Well, everything is cyclic and perhaps it will take some hard times
                    > to turn the US around.
                    >
                    > Tim
                    > >
                    > > realitytd <timojona@> wrote:
                    > > I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of
                    > imported oil. We
                    > > are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are
                    less
                    > > diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less
                    diversified
                    > > each day as industry leaves the country.
                    > >
                    > > We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
                    > > quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
                    > > nowhere near to an alternative fuel.
                    > >
                    > > Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
                    > > punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very
                    capable
                    > > of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine
                    getting
                    > > anything done with the Clintons in charge?
                    > >
                    > > Tim
                    > >
                    > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic
                    threat
                    > > to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
                    > > advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative
                    fuel
                    > > that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is
                    more
                    > > of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be
                    > drained
                    > > from their country without establishing a diversified economy.
                    How
                    > > will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
                    > > >
                    > > > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US
                    of
                    > > oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
                    > > technologically advance military to deal with them.
                    > > >
                    > > > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
                    > > majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
                    > > economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost
                    > that
                    > > role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > dej2_ <dej2_@> wrote: Thank you for the post!
                    > > >
                    > > > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
                    > > worst.."preparing
                    > > > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
                    > > >
                    > > > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
                    > > esclated
                    > > > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US
                    > accomplish
                    > > this
                    > > > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source
                    > to
                    > > > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
                    > > oil
                    > > > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
                    > > second
                    > > > cold war.
                    > > >
                    > > > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Thanks,
                    > > > Wil
                    > > >
                    > > > ---------------------------------
                    > > > Got a little couch potato?
                    > > > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Thanks,
                    > > Wil
                    > >
                    > > ---------------------------------
                    > > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
                    > >
                    >
                  • Douglas Henderson
                    ... SNIP In the interest of economy, please take the time to remove everything from the previous post except what specific point you are replying to. Otherwise
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jul 10, 2007
                      --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "wilm123" <wilm123@...> wrote:
                      SNIP

                      In the interest of economy, please take the time to remove
                      everything from the previous post except what specific point you are
                      replying to.

                      Otherwise the messages will just keep getting larger and larger, and
                      members can either view the previous posts in the thread if they
                      view the message online, or look back at the previous emails.

                      Yahoo does not represent the responses well, so it is somewhat
                      confusing to try to follow the argument in one message.

                      Thanks!

                      It's an interesting discussion though, contrasting theories of
                      comparative advantage with strategic weaknesses.

                      I wonder though if the power to withhold is as powerful as some
                      think. Unlike the US and Japan at the outbreak of war, one group
                      that could use natural resources withheld them from another group
                      that could also use them. Here the denying nations could not really
                      exploit what they withheld from others.

                      Are the oil producting nations also locked in to a relationship or
                      will ideology prevail? No oil sales, no income, and unless they
                      sealed off all sources of oil, the Oil dependent powers would still
                      have enough to seize what they need.

                      Even without military action, we have the odd situation of Iran
                      rationing gasoline because it lacks refinery capacity (a legacy
                      perhaps of old colonialist or imperialist policies, but still a
                      reality)

                      Regards
                      Douglas

                      Now feel free to snip my response <grin>
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.