tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2810814791836407713.post3607959241331239948..comments2024-03-27T00:29:11.029-07:00Comments on China Air and Naval Power: Victory Parade and Chinese politicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2810814791836407713.post-78247786593913982872015-12-28T12:03:46.797-08:002015-12-28T12:03:46.797-08:00Why wasting your precious time online looking for ...Why wasting your precious time online looking for a loan? When there is an opportunity for you to invest with $200 and get a returns of $2,000 within seven business working days. Contact us now for more information if interested on how you can earn big with just little amount. This is all about investing into Crude Oil and Gas Business. Email Us At: investmoneyoilgas@gmail.com<br /><br />Regard<br />DR JAMES ERICINVEST WITH $200 AND GET A RETURNS OF $2,000https://www.blogger.com/profile/12051374300186935734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2810814791836407713.post-40497477550945896562015-09-14T07:53:33.613-07:002015-09-14T07:53:33.613-07:00As for homing in on a fast moving target : Don'...As for homing in on a fast moving target : Don't air to air missiles home onto things much smaller and faster moving than an aircraft carrier ? The carrier would be lit up like a Xmas tree in the radio spectrum , against the sea . If a sensor on a LRAAM can home in on an object less than 20 metres across from 150km away , surely a df-21d warhead can be made to see something 300 metres long as the maneuvering warhead re-enters the atmosphere within 150 kms of it . <br />And even if there was a possibility that they CAN do so , then the US navy will likely not risk losing a carrier in that way . The loss would render obsolete their entire carrier force within 2-3000 km of China . And , indeed world wide , once the technology is proven and supplied to other interested nations . Ozsteve53https://www.blogger.com/profile/02912813770543652718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2810814791836407713.post-3193673608322878482015-09-06T23:23:31.553-07:002015-09-06T23:23:31.553-07:00I largely agree with your analysis. I think though...I largely agree with your analysis. I think though it is not as simple as older leaders resisting reforms. When China first started developing under Deng, the infrastructure was bad and a great deal of investments were needed. The investment lead development worked because the return on investment was high at the beginning where investment was lacking. After a few decades, they approach levels where investments were becoming increasingly wasteful. Yet, the people in power have benefited enormously from this investment lead growth. They become the group with vested interest in continuing this path even though it may lead the country down a blind alley. The elder statesmen merely represent this group with vested interest. This is part of the reason why many countries fall into the middle income trap. The old model of growth created a great deal of distortion, runs out of steam just as it created its own champions to keep it going. Hopefully, the new leadership can overcome all that, but it is a very hard problem to solve. Having said this, I think the current leadership have a good chance at turning this around. The economist Michael Pettis has written extensive on this. <br />johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09036257318743111271noreply@blogger.com