Never shy to reveal his issues on his blog, Mark Whittington describes his false memories:

I remember being hooted at when I suggested that China might want to deny access to space to other countries, including new space entrepreneurs.

When did that happen, Mark? Got a cite to an actual web page?

The important point is that Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq don't share money and don't share a command structure. They have no more in common than Java and Javascript. Adding a period to make either part look the same is inane. Even if you called it "Java. Script.", it still wouldn't be Java.

The same could be said of a company and a division of a company. It's very unlikely that a lot of the command structure internal to the division is going to overlap with the command structure outside the division. As I see it, the influx of foreign volunteers is a counterexample to your claim that global Al Qaeda doesn't share resources with Al Qaeda in Iraq.

How in the world did that happen? I did think of posting here before, but I didn't actually do so.

Moving on, Mark Whittington posts a lot. So it's likely that he has been hooted at. The real question is "so what"? We don't know whether the hooting was justified or not, nor who engaged in the hooting. Being hooted at on Something Awful or 4Chan is not very informative. And there's no reason to think that it's relevant to Mark's argument.

My take is that the fundamental flaws in Mark's argument are as follows. First, he starts with the observation that China has constructed over the years foils to US power of various degrees of utility. This would be of some benefit if China actually ended up in a war with the US. Then he veers into the claim that China has some sort of intent to "deny" space in peacetime to other countries.

Then he overstates China's capabilities in space. I do find that their capabilities are improving (eg, the compressed launch schedule in the first half of this year). But the claim that a relatively small number of near perfect launches is sufficient to achieve domination in space seems absurd to me.

China also isn't building up conventional forces. For example, they've developed new diesel submarines that provide some degree of deterence against US subs and aircraft carriers. But the number of subs seems small (about 55 in 2004, apparently) and the subs don't run the sort of missions that create experienced crews.

It seems likely that if China wanted to dominate space in the way that Mark suggests, they would also improve their conventional forces in the same way.

Karl, for some current and more accurate analysis of China's space ambitions, I refer you to the following:

http://thespacereview.com/article/930/1

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/16/kueter.htm

You, Rand, and certain others are behaving like people in the 1930s who denied the military buildup and the threat posed by Germany and Japan.

By the way, I really ought not to do this, because whethever the evidence, Rand will just deny, deny deny.

Do a search on Jon Goff;s site. I would provide the addresses myself, but (a) I don't feel like taking the time and and effort just to refute another one of Rand's rhetorical games, and (b) Rand's comment software flags blogs*ot as a forbidden word.

Do a search on Jon Goff;s site. I would provide the addresses myself, but (a) I don't feel like taking the time and and effort just to refute another one of Rand's rhetorical games, and (b) Rand's comment software flags blog*spot as a forbidden word.

Sorry, Mark, that won't fly. If you can't provide a URL due to the fact that both you and Jon use a service that is the biggest purveyor of blog-spam, hint at it (and it's more than "Jon Goff's site"). And provide an actual quote to support your fantasies.

You, Rand, and certain others are behaving like people in the 1930s who denied the military buildup and the threat posed by Germany and Japan.

So, what aviation policies would Mark Whittington have advocated in the 1930's?

* Limiting funding for the proposed Military Air Plane to paper studies, not enough for actual development?

* Declaring that it was "not the NACA's job" to promote commercial or military aviation?

* Diverting NACA funding from wind tunnels and military/commercial R&D to build an expensive dirigible, based on 30-year-old designs, to take NACA aeronauts on expensive trips to "Hawaii, Tahiti, and Beyond"?

* Ridiculing the idea that anyone except the NACA could cross the ocean by air?

* Telling the American people that the crash of the NACA air shuttle Columbia proved airplanes were inherently dangerous and dirigibles would be the only safe way to fly for the next 40 years?

* Telling the American people that the failure of the Langley/NACA X-33 proved heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible?

* Landing three NACA aeronauts on Iwo Jima, unarmed, where they would plant a flag, collect somes rocks, and declare that they "came in peace for all Mankind"? At which point, the Japanese Army would immediately lay down their weapons and surrender?

I sense hooting.

Mark, my point remains. China could buildup their military to threatening levels. Their economy is sufficient. They aren't though. The rhetoric about a new "Pearl Harbor" or the comparison to 1930's Europe ignores a fundamental thing. China isn't aggressively building up its military. It's not acting like it's about to invade someone, despite the nonsense over the country of Taiwan.

Karl: "China isn't aggressively building up its military. "

China IS building up it's military, at an alarming rate. It remains to be seen if this is a prelude to anything "aggressive" or not. Their military leaders sure talk as if it is.

China IS building up it's military, at an alarming rate. It remains to be seen if this is a prelude to anything "aggressive" or not. Their military leaders sure talk as if it is.

You may find this alarming, but apparently they still spend a smaller fraction of their GDP on the military than the US does. I gather from US Department of Defense estimates, that if the US weren't spending for the Iraqi occupation, then Chinese spending might be slightly more than US spending as a percentage of GDP. I don't consider that alarming in itself.

The point is that we often hoot at Mark, for good reason, but I can't recall a single instance in which we did it because he "suggested that China might want to deny access to space to other countries, including new space entrepreneurs."

That may have happened somewhere, but it never happened here, at least by me, and it never happened at Selenian Boondocks, either. We've never even hooted at the notion that China has ill intentions toward us, despite Mark's repetition of this nonsensical straw man.

What we hooted at was the notion that the Chinese are going to beat us to the moon, and prevent us from landing there. The hooting (appropriately) continues on that notion.

"I don't consider that alarming in itself."

Well there is your 1930's Europe comparison.

Now I'm not saying that China IS the next Nazi Germany, but if their military growth doesn't at least raise an eyebrow..... well someone has their head stuck in the sand just as surely as most Brits did in 1935.

China IS building up it's military, at an alarming rate. It remains to be seen if this is a prelude to anything "aggressive" or not. Their military leaders sure talk as if it is.

Lets look at this hypothetically.

A country run by a fundamentalist nutjob with twenty times the military assets of your country is making veiled threats against your sovereignty. Would you buy more weapons?

That was mine.

OK you signed your name to your screed, great. Now how about some facts to back up your ludicrous accusations?

fundamentalist nutjob? threats against your sovereignty?

Back away from the bong, you're the nut-job.

Just out of curiosity, Mark, what is it that we're supposed to be looking for in the archives at the Selenian Boondocks? Which are well worth the read; thank you for the pointer.

Having posted a fair amount over there myself, I'm just checking to make sure you aren't calling me out for some vague and indirect reason.