Global authoritarianism
January 19, 2007 on 11:32 am | In Uncategorized |The USA is by far the most powerful military nation in the world, so much so that no other combination of countries can realistically threaten it with conventional military action. That’s the way the USA likes it and the fundamental objective of US defence policy is to prevent any other country ever being able to mount a serious challenge to American dominance.
The latest demonstration of this policy is the USA’s objection to China developing a rocket that can knock out low-orbit satellites. China tested it successfully the other day (on one of their own satellites, I hasten to add). Such a weapon would be very useful in a war, taking out US spy satellites and thereby depriving America of one of its most significant advantages in a conflict.
So isn’t it eminently predictable and not unreasonable that a country like China should try to reduce the enormous imbalance of military capability that currently exists between it and the USA? Not according to the US. They run the goddam world and under the Bush administration they don’t bother to hide it.
Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to “freedom of action in space” and says it will “deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so.”
The policy includes the right to “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”
In accordance with this asserted right, the USA has protested to China. One commentator observed:
“The thing that is surprising and disturbing is that [the Chinese] have chosen this moment to demonstrate a military capability that can only be aimed at the United States”
I love the offended tone. America has a huge military advantage, it’s well-known that the Pentagon’s ‘big war’ plans are all based on conflict with China, but when China tries to develop weapons that will leave it slightly less disadvantaged, it’s doing something ‘aimed at the USA’ as if that’s an aggressive move.
What is most concerning is that ’several U.S. allies, including Canada and Australia, also have registered protests.’ I haven’t seen any mention of this locally; is our government’s mindless support of the Bush administration now so taken for granted that a diplomatic protest with as little merit as this can be made without anybody caring or even noticing? Apparently.
Who replaced Rudd as foreign affairs spokesperson again? Better lift your game, whoever you are.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Categories:
- Uncategorized (rss) (316)
Archives:
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (22)
- October 2008 (3)
- September 2008 (5)
- August 2008 (5)
- July 2008 (8)
- June 2008 (4)
- May 2008 (6)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (7)
- February 2008 (5)
- January 2008 (6)
- December 2007 (3)
- November 2007 (15)
- October 2007 (11)
- September 2007 (17)
- August 2007 (17)
- July 2007 (15)
- June 2007 (11)
- May 2007 (14)
- April 2007 (14)
- March 2007 (10)
- February 2007 (21)
- January 2007 (28)
- December 2006 (29)
- November 2006 (13)
- October 2006 (8)
- September 2006 (7)
- August 2006 (3)
- July 2006 (1)
Blogroll
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
If half the stuff I’ve read about who carrys the can for US spending is true, I think they protest too much. All this ‘protesting’ must be for domestic consumption.
I’d view an actual capital-W war between China and the US (EVER) as extreeeeemly unlikely, but their relationship might end up looking a whole lot like that between the bankrupt British Empire and Roosevelt’s America one of these days.
Comment by Kieran — January 20, 2007 #
“I’d view an actual capital-W war between China and the US (EVER) as extreeeeemly unlikely”
In a rational world I’d agree with you. But one problem with having the world’s most humungous war machine is that it’s expensive to maintain. The only real way to justify it is to use it occasionally. And since the chance of that happening in defence of US territory is negligible, it can only occur in foreign adventures.
The truly scary thing about the US system of government is that a single man, the president, can order the military to do things that virtually guarantee conflict with another nation. I can’t think off hand of another major power that’s allowed a supreme ruler such unaccountable authority, at least since Napoleon. Well Hitler maybe, but only after an internal tussle with the generals that went on for years.
Comment by Administrator — January 21, 2007 #
Well yes, and that opens the question of at what point the military establishment (which seems to dangerously consist of a nation within a nation) would baulk at something the President demanded. Much as I despise Bush, I sort of hope the answer is ‘never’. I have American friends and it would be a shame to see them living under martial law.
Seriously to address the main point, I genuinely see a US-China stoush as inconcievable, because China makes a lot of shit very cheap, and buys a lot of dollars. ie. It’s useful. The recent trend seems to be to use those expensive war toys on more ramshackle enemies.
I feel that - not to drift wildly off the point but whatever - American politics have been dangerously skewed by forty years of Cold War. As a result of that era, they seem to evaluate their potential presidents as potential war commanders when considering whom to vote for. The commander in chief. Oh dear.
As for unaccountable authority. Well Hitler, Stalin. Those would be the big ones, I suppose. Although Stalin’s generals kind of had to win it on their own after his nervous breakdown.
Comment by Kieran — January 23, 2007 #