Slashdot Mirror
China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter
An anonymous reader writes "Pictures of a new Chinese stealth fighter prototype started showing up recently on the web. The airplane prototype was photographed at a Shenyang aircraft facility and seems to be a twin-engined lightweight fighter in the F-35 class. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled to visit China this week in the midst of tension regarding territorial disputes in the region."
China Unveils Yet Another Stealth Fighter
Seems they quite get the idea of stealth!
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
How quaint... Welcome to the 90s, China.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Painting it black, doesn't make it stealthy!
It might be a cardboard model just to mess with their enemy's' heads.
No sig today...
For 9,999,9987
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
and seems to be a twin-engined lightweight fighter in the F-35 class.
In other words, overweeight, over budget, under performing, poor range and not quite here yet but will be real soon now we promise unless you want the variant that you actually need in which case it will be here real not quite soon now.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The layering processing China is using is outdated and inferior to US's radar absorbing layering mesh.
It's technically stealthy, and most radar systems wont detect it, especially ones in many other countries, including Russias. However, US does have radar technology to detect these planes, heck we need it to detect our 20 year old stealth bombers!
Yeah why do they just copy our laws of physics, can't they make their own?!?
I'm assuming this cost them less than half the price it does it build ours. I'd still rather fly in an American made plane over any Chinese knock-off.
Given that we yoinked aiframes, designs, machine tools, and scientists(see 'Project Paperclip') pretty much wholesale from the parts of germany we got to first, we probably shouldn't head for the moral high ground just yet...
They could spend that money on helping the world's poor get some food, healthcare, permanent shelter, et cetera.
I can't think of a better way to get the aforementioned resources than to go in after them heavily armed.
Have gnu, will travel.
Force your enemy into an arms race, bankrupting their country.
Looks like China are copying US military tactics too.
I wonder how many jobs a research project like this creates... "Spending money helping the poor" isn't exactly as simple as it seems.
Don't be an idiot...
The design is based on the mathematically most efficient design man kind has discovered for aerodynamic surfaces that have the lowest possible radar profile possible. It would be retarded to go with anything BUT the most efficient design possible. So please drop the "they copied us" crap, just because your country found the most efficient design first....
That would be astounding, considering most Chinese aircraft are based on Russian and Ukranian aircraft...
you need more than one to fight a war
what about the engines? do they emit less heat like the f-35?
are all the angles exactly like the F-35 which is what matters? what about the paint? is it radar absorbing paint?
what about the command and control? we have special C&C aircraft to target the fighters onto the enemy so its all over before a dogfight.
its not just about building a demo aircraft. its the whole system
"Gee, Britain, why are you spending all your money on a navy? You have the people of your empire to consider, and you spend this much on a new battleship? You could build ten merchant vessels for that price, but who cares about feeding your poor subjects, right? A 2-million-pound dreadnought is a much better buy, even if it will never be used for anything serious. Because the UK, France, Russia and Germany will in all probability never go to war with each other."
Everything is better with chainsaws.
If you are spending a ton of money on something you'll probably never use, and what's more, of no productive use at all, you might as well cut costs by stealing designs of that from the retards who developed it first and spend the savings on something useful. Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?
The Manhattan Project started in 1939 - 73 years ago. Seems relevant.
Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today.
Don't underestimate 70 year old tech... ...without yesterdays tech we would not have the tech of today.
If all the money spent on machines of war, was put towards something like, say, space travel, maybe we could achieve faster-than-light travel.
The spoils of war from a world war with Germany doesn't quite compare to espionage from a country that you supposedly have peaceful relations with.
Such is the nature of espionage, though. Both sides do it, and react in "outrage" when they catch it happening.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
You've tested this I take it? Where can I buy an F-35?
It's not that astounding. Why, when I was volunteering in Africa, I found some Chinese-made RJ-45 plugs that fit directly into my American laptop! Even the Chinese Ethernet switch worked perfectly with it!
On an airplane, I expect many bolts, rivets, and screws will all "fit directly."
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Because the US, EU, Russia and China will in all probability never go to war with each other.
Alex, "what is proxy wars for fun and profit?"
Would not be surprised to see .cn and .jp going at it in a limited way over those stupid islands in the next month or so. My guess is some amphibious "beach storming" foolishness plus or minus some aerial bombardment to make a point before they kiss and make up diplomatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force
JASDF has F-15J mitsubishi built interceptors... basically the same as the 30 year old retired US F15 but with a really large spoiler on the back and under chassis neon lighting and a 10 kilowatt stereo system, no wait just kidding about that, its not a honda civic its a mitsubishi, which means they falsify their user survey results, as I recall. The F-2 is basically a modernized super-duper F16, a pretty serious plane, lots of nationalist whining on both sides respectively about the general topic of how they should have bought our modernized super duper F16 instead of building their own vs they wanted to make their very own homemade F16. The JASDF museum collection of F-4s are all older than I am, which is pretty creepy, but I suppose still effective if used properly.
Modern warfare is basically catching the other guy when he screws up, more so than a pure specs game. A .cn stealth fighter vs 2 or 3 F-2 in clear air VFR conditions over the ocean will eat the .cn fighter alive. Even 3 antique F-4 in perfect conditions for the F-4 could have the .cn fighter for dinner if they coordinate perfectly etc. The trick in all warfare is getting your opponent to fight on your terms not theirs.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
All I see is a guy floating 10 feet off the ground.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
It seems to me as if there's a group in each country, call it (for lack of a truly accurate count) about 10% of the population, that drive the power-seeking and conflicts between countries. These "layers" in each society drive most of the wars and scrape off more wealth than they could possibly use from the rest of the world. It seems that most of the rest of us would get along pretty well with little more than local police (assuming you've removed the psychopaths) if these people were removed from society. It's amazing how such a small number of these psychopaths can drag the Earth's population through such misery.
And do you really want to be flying in a fighter plane when the nose just falls off because of those cut corners? Reminds me of this building.
Tell that to Petr Ufimtsev.
Nullius in verba
No I don't, but being as I am not in the Chinese military I think the odds were pretty low to begin with.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Fighters are designed strategically from the top down. A country says 1) what are it's strategic goals, and 2) what capabilities are we missing to fill those? American strategic goals are long range power projection; with two oceans protecting them and more or less dominance in the western hemisphere, American goals are to spoil the rise of other countries that might threaten it's interests. The F-22 is designed around this in mind; it's designed to penetrate enemy air space and establish air superiority while destroying air defenses, so that more conventional planes and bombers can then act as a force multiplier for ground troops.
China's goals are much closer to home. China seeks to secure it's own mainland (the Chinese coast) and establish dominance over the South China Sea and it's southern neighbor. Thus it's fighters are designed around area denial, primarily to keep the US Navy out of it's terriorial waters. Everything you read about the J-20 says it's not as stealthy as the F-22 and can't seem to manuever as well, but it's mostly designed to be a threat to naval ships and keep them out of Chinese waters. THat's why you see that China has developed now 1) the world's largest attack submarine fleet (although all are Diesel-Electric, not nuclear, so individually not as good as the US or British subs, but there's more of them), 2) one of the most advanced anti-ship missiles every designed that can be launched from a mobile, truck mounted launcher, and now 3) stealth fighters that aren't quite as stealthy as the US ones but stealthy enough for the area denial role.
Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today.
Funny you should mention that... Built in 1955, after we snagged a few smaller presses from Germany and the commies got a 30,000 ton press. Continues to operate to the present day, providing precision pressed aerospace components to much of the US aircraft production industry...
True. Most of the weapons in the arsenal probably aren't to be used in actual war, but in the projection of military supremacy. Enemies would think twice if they saw what "awesome firepower" you have (even if most if it is just cardboard cutouts or lame copies).
As for your second question - probably never. If you look throughout human history, it's been basically war after war after war, and most of the research involved in making wars lead to the comforts we enjoy today. Just human nature - someone has a big gun, someone else gets jealous and builds a bigger gun. Just be content in the fact that we've not yet waged any atomic war that wipes out most of humanity.
And it's probably about half as stealthy... or less.
See how those thrusters jut right out the back? That's not stealth. The rest of it might be, sort of.
So from a low resolution picture on the Internet, you can tell that the technology in that demonstration aircraft is stolen from the West? Looking similar is meaningless.
Does it have the F-22's energy absorbing coatings? Probably not.
Does it have the F-22's radar systems? Probably not.
Does it have the F-22's vectored thrust? Hell no.
Can it supercruise? I wouldn't bet on it.
Also, RIAA for technology piracy? You have got to be kidding me. With this kind of technology, governments deal in different terms, like "espionage" and "open warfare."
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Seriously, what kind of tool mods this fake moralistic crap up?
The kind that has perspective.
We didn't just copy, we straight up took the people and tools necessary to advance our aerospace technology.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Your "laws" are only as good as your ability to enforce them (usually at the end of a sharp stick.)
Those are standardized parts. Parts in an airplane tend to only work with that airplane. There are standardized parts to make them cheaper and easier but most are unique to that type of aircraft.
The Chinese government does this a lot, even though it makes little sense. There have been many advances since the first stealth fighters were designed. Had they started from scratch, they would have had a better product. Same with aircraft carriers. They bought one from that technological power house, Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Varyag). So many advances in ship design have come and gone between the construction of that ship and now, that it makes little overt sense to try and retrofit it. China has thousands of unemployed engineers who could have done a much better job starting from scratch.
And don't get me started on the WTF(!) of the three gorges dam. Hundreds of small dams along the length of the Yangtze would have been manageable, affordable, allowed precise flood control, generated just as much power and provided significant redundancy. One big dam is just a single point of failure and is asking for trouble.
For a country largely governed by engineers, I would have expected better decisions.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?
Ever? No, not likely. In our lifetimes? Absolutely not.
Still bog standard exhausts on those engines. I'm not convinced till they can show a stealthy exhaust. It's a dead giveaway that the book is all cover, no content.
Such is the nature of espionage, though. Both sides do it, and react in "outrage" when they catch it happening.
That's the part that I find so annoying. If people want to be boy scouts, knock it off with the cloak and dagger and go earn a merit badge or something. If people want to be all cloak and dagger, quit regurgitating your deeply unconvincing lies about what you aren't doing.
with a Buy-It-Now like they have everything else.
mfwright@batnet.com
Have a look at what damage foreign aid does to a community. At face value, it may appear that providing rice or shoes is a good thing. But after the initial feel-good, you realize that the "free" aid managed to kill off any local infrastructure for said goods - the local producers can't compete with "free" and consequently go out of business. With no local infrastructure, the population becomes wholly dependent on foreign aid.
The only valid way to pull people out of poverty is through nation-building. You're not going to get that with external charity funding. You also won't get that if the recipients of said programs really don't want to participate.
Yep almost a perfect copy of the F35 externally, except no VTOL/STOL stuff and two exhaust outlets instead of one.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Absolutely. We haven't innovated one damned thing since then.
Oh keeper of the most smug tablet of moral superiority, thank you for your wisdom, ensuring we do not stray.
Never takes you long to show up.
Don't forget to justify Muslim outrage because of the crusades while you're at it.
Maybe I was unclear, and maybe you weren't paying attention; but my point would be precisely the opposite of somebody who would go cuddle with them about how traumatic the crusades were, oh noes...
My point here is "Yeah, China would appear to be ripping off the best designs available, which means US stealth tech and some amount of ruskie reliability; I would remind everyone frothing at the vile espionage of the Red Chinaman that espionage is something everybody does, so shut up for once." Where somebody to come whining about 'crusaders', it'd be "And the groups who swept across north africa and up into the iberian peninsula were different how exactly? Or the ones that didn't make it past Mr. Martel while pushing into eastern Europe? Everybody is launching pointless wars of aggression today, neither side will have a toehold worth a damn within a century or two, and none of this affects you 1000 years later except in some onanistic nationalist fantasy. Shut up."
I understand the point of the F-22 and F-35 was to keep Lockheed's engineers busy while drone technology was perfected. That's how the defense industry works. Lockheed got the next gen manned fighter program, Boeing got the missile defense and some of the drone work, northrop is getting some of the drone work, that's just how it works.
It still would have made a lot more sense and been far cheaper to have just produced a new upgraded block of F-15's to replace those with too many flight hours and we wouldn't have lost any capabilities, they'd been in service 10 years ago, and probably could have built 3 for the cost of an F-22 or F-35. Not to mention already had the service and support tools in place as probably much of the gear would have remained the same. I'm sure the new F-15's would have been around the $50M a piece range (maybe $60 - 65M in todays dollars), but that's a lot cheaper than the limited number of F-22.
This is what the navy did with the F/A-18 Super Hornet. R&D was about $200M and even came in on time and under budget. It shared a lot of the same support tooling as the older F/A-18 C/D models, which is important on a ship with limited space.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
It only looks like a raptor until the Chinese open up the surfaces of it to advertising.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Because the US, EU, Russia and China will in all probability never go to war with each other... -----
but like what was commented about buying a 2-million-pound dreadnought instead feeding poor subjects because UK, France, Russia and Germany will never go to war with each other. But which they did, and the submarine and carrier based airplanes in later wars made that dreadnought irrevalent. Another item to note is The Empire shrank to an island after those wars.
mfwright@batnet.com
Well, Postwar japaneses have a lesson to give here. Start copying, understand how it works and then try to improve. Since the jet of the photos is similar to the F-35 (or maybe F-22? Both?) but have two turbines (then is not just a copy), I suspect that the Chinese are entering the part of trying to improve.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
*WOOSH!*
Seems oddly appropriate, given the topic of discussion.
You can't help people (witness drug addicts, alcoholics, etc).
They have to help themselves - else you'll be helping them FOREVER (I.E. America's own Trillion dollar welfare state).
I'd rather spend money on rocketships.
And that is their definition of stealth.
I am soooo tired of "this is a copy" comments.
Who has ever produced ANYTHING not based upon the ideas of others, unless you count the very first stone tools of 50000+ years ago???
Oh, and talking about airplanes: humans copied the main design from birds.
I'm pretty sure Ben Rich said that Lockheed's original stealth designs were based on Soviet research for modelling radar cross sections in his 'Skunkworks' book.
Technology is technology. You said (and I quote)
"Right, because technology from 70 YEARS ago is so meaningful today."
How is a 5 story tall ultra-high-precision manufacturing doohickey NOT technology?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Just human nature - someone has a big gun, someone else gets jealous and builds a bigger gun. Just be content in the fact that we've not yet waged any atomic war that wipes out most of humanity.
Warfare is not human nature. It's the way that our culture has developed. The first archeological evidence of warfare is from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens reached anatomical modernity (which was around 200,000 years ago). And we have archaeological evidence of other cultural activity (such as cooking, religion, music, and burials) that goes back much further, which suggests that it's not merely a case of our not *yet* having found the evidence of earlier warfare. Also, there are human societies that do not wage war.
It's an important distinction because if war truly were human nature it would mean that we will *never* be rid of it, and there would be no point in trying. Whereas cultural features can fade away over time.
There's a very well-argued book on this topic: 'The End of War' by John Horgan.
You never know, lead paint might deflect radar better.
Linux. You bet. I heard it runs Komunix!
Seriously, when are we going to evolve from that stage where we are still inventing new ways to throw rocks at each other?
Since evolution involves a certain segment of a population dying off, and another segment surviving to reproduce, it seems that the segment that has the newest and best way to throw rocks would be the most likely to survive. I don't see anything about 'evolution' that would discourage inventing new rock throwers.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Remember that there are advantages in having two engines instead of one, not just the fact of whether it is cheaper than making a single large one.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
What, you couldn't reply directly to my post? That dreadnought was made irrelevant by carrier warfare, yeah, 30 years later - long after its expected lifetime. In the meantime, the Royal Navy was able to keep the vast majority of Germany's navy bottled up in the North Sea for the duration of WW1. As a result, British merchants could still travel and trade almost at will (yes, they still had to worry about U-boats, but those weren't nearly as big a threat as surface raiders, especially in the First War). Spending your money to help the poor is all well and good until a blockade prevents you from using that money.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
I few years ago I was flying across the U.S. I had managed a good deal on first class tickets. So I was sitting beside someone who ran an electronics company which used contract manufacturers in China. I asked him about piracy of his IP. He said, and with a straight face so well that I think he believed it, that they keep the important stuff segregated, and the assembly distributed among several plants so that the Chinese would not be able to pirate their IP.
WTF? I believe that is what the majority of these jokers who offshore think or think they have successfully led us to believe. But I really believe it is what they think. I have to. Why else would they spend BILLIONS of dollars on patent lawsuits, just so they can have their ideas built in China where everyone except them (it seems), KNOW that the designs will be stolen and copied. These so called leaders of business can't be that stupid can they? After all most have business degrees and MBA's. Do they count so little? Actually I think they aren't so stupid but are cynical pricks who only look out for their own pocket books. Globalization means global for those with the money, and they have the money. It doesn't matter what the condition of your country if you live in a gated community.
Mind you, what does it say about the majority of people who help them to become millionaires, based on what? You'd think we'd learn by now after what we had to do to get Wall Street types from being paid huge bonuses just for showing up... wait, never mind.....
But seriously, why spend all that money on lawsuits for IP when they just have it built in China? It's like pouring water on the fire after the house has burned down. (Unless it's all a pretense?!) Why keep stealth fighters secret when you build most of the parts in China and hire Chinese nationals or ex-nationals without sufficient oversight (given the proven track record of Chinese spies in the defence and nuclear research areas). Actually, I think most members of the government are that stupid and/or naive since their main focus is really on getting re-elected and lining their pockets, and not on what is really happening. After all they don't have to know anything, just hire people who know everything. Isn't that how it works?
The government's talking heads will say that it just 'looks like an F-35' but the parts are different. We know the defence industry gets most of their electronics from China. I know that 1 + 1 = 2. They seem to think we think it adds up to 1.9. When the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 12, I know what time it is.
And now China is pushing its weight like crazy in the South China Sea. There were anti-Japanese riots closing Japanese factories in China today. They are not a benign factory for the world. They never were.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
That doesn't sound right. Fiberglass is usually done at much lower pressure. Heck, fiberglass moulding can be done without applying pressure at all.
Also, 600,000 tons on a bathtub is a ludicrous amount of pressure. That's about 300 GPa, or about the pressure in the center of the earth.
Uh, OK. I'll agree, given that we've seen chimpanzees go to war!
You're looking at something way deeper and more fundamental than human nature. War is simply a manifestation of the competition of life. On some primitive level, even the dumbest forms of life engage in this.
You can't escape the situation. Remember how the winners write history? They also leave more offspring. We are the descendents of creatures who were mostly winners and never complete losers. Our minds are shaped by evolution. Our status as humans does not exempt us from selection, not even today and not ever in the future.
(AP-Beijing) A spokesperson for the Shengyang Company said the new stealth plane will only have air-to-air missiles and no guns, as the nation's supply of lead has been exhausted by the children's toy and baby formula industries.
What is "human nature" apart from "the way that our culture has developed"?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Even knockoff stealth fighters now!
WOO!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
And the F-35 pretty much has to have one engine due to the VTOL requirement. If a single engine VTOL fails you just eject. If a single engine in a twin engine VTOL fails you may not get a chance to eject before the unbalanced thrust causes a catastrophic rotation. You can work around that so a single failure just causes the plane to fall out of the sky (e.g. using fans driven by both engines), but that adds more complexity which is likely to cause more crashes.
I know that people jest about China, but oftentimes they make exactly what the ODM specs out. If they spec cheap crap, they get cheap stuff. If they spec quality, top tier parts, the ship from China drops off tier 1 motors.
Champion generators comes to mind. Yes, their manufacturing is in a factory in a coastal province, but their products tend to be as good as they come, and their service is top notch. They spec decent stuff, the factory returns decent stuff.
How can completely inexperienced engineers do a better job from scratch? From scratch, neither they nor their military customers have the knowledge to write even the most basic of the requisite specs. (Not to mention your faith in the progress of ship designs is... wildly misplaced.)
That say more about your [utter lack of] knowledge and your [utterly unfounded in reality] assumptions than anything else.
Are you seriously thinking these planes would be put
into real combat action anytime soon?!
No -- to be a deterrent, which is what they are for, you
want your possible enemy to know what your arsenal is.
bjd
When i buy insurance, I sincerely hope the insurance company won't rush to help me. But I still buy insurances.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
This is why we should defund all research, and use the money to fund espionage. All of the benefits, very little of the costs. And afterwards, we'll just pick some idea the other guys borrowed a couple decades or centuries ago to justify what we did. Then everyone will be in awe of how smart Americans are.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Chinese Metric, USAEnglish, so the answer is no.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
So, speaking of assumptions unfounded in reality, you're saying that China has no shipwrights? And that they have no engineers who can study the plans and layout of existing ships, particularly hull design and friction, and improve on them? In case you haven't noticed or anything, the Chinese are pretty talented at studying and manufacturing things. I'm having a hard time thinking this is something they couldn't handle.
So, since my assumptions are so unfounded, I'm sure you can provide adequate justifications, with numbers and references. Have at it!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Warfare is not human nature. It's the way that our culture has developed
The way our culture developed is part of human nature. It's not like it suddenly came to be what it is. Culture evolves in the same way genome does (in fact, they affect each other). War is just a manifestation of parochial altruism, which is widespread in nature and is not at all unique to homo sapiens.
The first archeological evidence of warfare is from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens reached anatomical modernity (which was around 200,000 years ago).
The problem is that it's kinda hard to get archeological evidence of warfare when war consists of bashing each others' heads with blunt tools. However, we do have good reasons to believe that war long predates anatomical modernity for humans - other great apes also engage in it. Already in that time period you mention - 12,000 years ago - warfare was so widespread that we find numerous evidence of people who died from violence from other humans - up to a half of all of them.
The main reason why early Paleolitic didn't see much warfare in practice was of extremely low population density. When there are more lush lands to spread to, war raids don't have a good ROI, so evolution tends to favor groups that are not overly aggressive. Once we moved on from roaming hunter-gatherer societies to argiculture, warfare started to have a very high ROI (lots of stuff to loot, all in one place). Cultural attitudes towards war follow from that, not cause it.
Why would the Soviets scoop up scientists from the half of Germany that was occupied by American forces, unless Americans deliberately gave them away?
There are already passive radars out there that can detect this kind of stealth plane.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Human nature implies innateness. The innateness of war is unproven and I would argue that there is plenty of evidence that war is not innate (cultures that do not go to war, the majority of individuals who are reluctant to wage war).
the real question is how soon will all of these systems be on-line? The reason is that China has a number of systems going in that are more offensive then defensive. Even their space lab is a military base just like the first 10 years of USSR's space stations (all were military outposts) or the MOB that America never built. It should be obvious that China has fully intentions of positioning themselves around the globe to take on the west. Even notice where they are helping nations to put in 'Nuclear power plants': North Korea, Iran, Burma, and now Venezuela are all putting in 'power plants' deep into the earth (over 200' down).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Which are the cultures that do not go to war, that are not protected by warlike neighbors?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The only way that China will not be going to war with Japan, is if Japan steps down and allows China to dominate them economically.
And to be honest, it is better for the west to step foward now and back Japan rather than allow China to steal senkaku. The reason is that China will turn it into a military FOB to help invade Taiwan.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Cave paintings date back to around 40,000 years ago. The first known musical instrument was around 25,000 years ago. I think those items are evidence of "real civilization".
You are assuming that the absence of war means "peaceful, harmonious society". It's likely that there has always been conflict, and always will be. The question is how that conflict gets resolved. It does not have to be (and has not always been) through war.
I challenge you to read the book (Horgan -- 'End of War'). It's a quick read and his points are well made.
Yet, you think they're doing it wrong for studying the Varyag... which presents something of a conundrum, because now you've claimed that 2+2=3, *and* that 2+2=5.
As I said before, that's due to your baseless assumption that you know what you're talking about.
Those who have a clue about shipbuilding, or for that matter about any serious engineering whatsoever, know full well that when you've never built the object in question... studying an actual example is far more valuable than studying blueprints.
Those who have a clue about naval architecture and history, know full well the Chinese have never built a vessel of this size and complexity.
Those who have a clue about naval operations know full well that it takes decades to jumpstart an operating carrier from a blank sheet.
Ignorant jackasses pull stuff out of their ass and blow smoke when someone points out the errors in their assumption.
Four different categories - guess which one describes you?
US servicemen rely on a variety of "small, incredibly sophisticated electronic components" found in night vision systems, radios and GPS devices and the failure of a single part could put a soldier at risk, the report said.
So in other words counterfeit resisters and capacitors.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Warfare is not human nature. It's the way that our culture has developed
The way our culture developed is part of human nature. It's not like it suddenly came to be what it is. Culture evolves in the same way genome does (in fact, they affect each other).
The problem with that argument is that if genome and culture develop in lockstep, then either 1) there cannot be any significant differences between cultures, or 2) there must be significant, culturally-determined genetic differences between cultures. But there clearly are differences between cultures, so it can't be 1). And humans are not genetically diverse enough for 2) to be plausible.
War is just a manifestation of parochial altruism, which is widespread in nature and is not at all unique to homo sapiens.
Let's define war as lethal group violence within a species. There are some limited examples of this in chimpanzees. Where else in nature would we find it?
The first archeological evidence of warfare is from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago, long after homo sapiens reached anatomical modernity (which was around 200,000 years ago).
The problem is that it's kinda hard to get archeological evidence of warfare when war consists of bashing each others' heads with blunt tools.
We would look for skulls that had been bashed in with blunt tools, or ribs damaged by sharp tools, in significant enough numbers that we would know that we were looking at group violence, not just one-on-one. That is what does not show up in the archaeological evidence until 10k-13k years ago.
However, we do have good reasons to believe that war long predates anatomical modernity for humans - other great apes also engage in it. Already in that time period you mention - 12,000 years ago - warfare was so widespread that we find numerous evidence of people who died from violence from other humans - up to a half of all of them.
I'd be really fascinated if you would point me to the evidence. I read the John Horgan ('End of War') book in fact-checking mode, seeing whether I could find holes in his evidence. If you have this evidence, it would indeed be a hole. Bear in mind that "violence from other humans" is not good enough. We are talking about war, not murder. It must be group violence.
The main reason why early Paleolitic didn't see much warfare in practice was of extremely low population density. When there are more lush lands to spread to, war raids don't have a good ROI, so evolution tends to favor groups that are not overly aggressive. Once we moved on from roaming hunter-gatherer societies to argiculture, warfare started to have a very high ROI (lots of stuff to loot, all in one place). Cultural attitudes towards war follow from that, not cause it.
Yes, this is possible, and an interesting argument. If we found a culture who lives in proximity to its nearest neighbor, but does not engage in war, would the argument be able to accommodate that?
John Horgan (in 'The End of War') cites the !Kung of the Kalahari desert as an example. However, there's also a book by Lawrence Keeley ('War before Civilization') that argues they were warriors in the past. To me, this is all the more interesting: they appear to be a culture that had war and got rid of it.
I'd have to agree. The moral question of espionage is pointless here. Everyone does industrial espionage in some form, even the US. China doing this is probably not a big deal, except maybe how blatant they are about it.
What does need to be addressed is what it means about China. If their technology is strongly based on the ripping off of technology, it does show a potential weakness in their own scientific programs. That potential weakness may indicate that China's roar may be more like that of a paper tiger, as opposed to a real threat or competition.
On the other hand, in the 19th Century the US used to be a place where people would copy things and get away with it, although for the most part that was things like musicals and not science so much. In any event, copying science can give you a leg up and even the playing field, assuming you do have the chops to make further progress based on that tech and aren't simply reliant on copying tech all the time. And if anyone has ever played a 4X game before, you're probably all very well aware of the very valuable advantages of stealing other people's tech while you concentrate on other things.
Mr President, we simply cannot allow afford a closed die forging press gap!
The problem with that argument is that if genome and culture develop in lockstep, then either 1) there cannot be any significant differences between cultures, or 2) there must be significant, culturally-determined genetic differences between cultures. But there clearly are differences between cultures, so it can't be 1). And humans are not genetically diverse enough for 2) to be plausible.
We're talking about "in lockstep" over evolutionary timescales, i.e. tens of thousands of years at a minimum. And by culture here I mean the whole body of learned behavior (as opposed to inherited). Of course, modern cultures, which are at most a couple thousand years old, cannot obviously correspond to genetic differences.
That said, there is actually some correspondence. For example, there is a gene (7R allele of DRD4) that is more prevalent among cultures with recent nomadic history (Mongols, Indians etc), and it seems to correlate with the higher likelihood of taking riskier but more rewarding choices (over safe but little rewarding) in controlled experiments.
We would look for skulls that had been bashed in with blunt tools, or ribs damaged by sharp tools, in significant enough numbers that we would know that we were looking at group violence, not just one-on-one. That is what does not show up in the archaeological evidence until 10k-13k years ago.
When you have groups of 10-15 people, it's going to be hard to distinguish group violence and one-on-one violence. With chimps we can make the difference between fights within a group and raids on another group because we actually observe a bunch of chimps gather and move to the territory outside of their own and kill other chimps. How do you determine that from a bunch of bone fragments, though?
Yes, this is possible, and an interesting argument. If we found a culture who lives in proximity to its nearest neighbor, but does not engage in war, would the argument be able to accommodate that?
Well, it's all guesswork, ultimately. It's hard to make controlled experiments on such matters on actual human populations. However, it is rather telling that a strong rise in archeological evidence of what clearly was massive warfare (as in groups of dozens or hundreds of individuals) correspond to the estimated date of the rise of agriculture.
As a side note, we have a great many different societies all over the world today - including some tribes in Amazon which aren't even out of Paleolithic. And vast majority of them seem to have a good grasp of what war is, and practice it regularly, even the Paleolithic guys.
Also, from a purely theoretical perspective, ethologists have build some very convincing models that show that parochial altruism (and the behaviors that follow from it, such as xenophobia and warfare) pretty much inevitably comes up in the evolution of social primates, since, at the stage when you have relatively small groups (of under 100 people) who are mostly relatives, ganging up together against other guys is evolutionary advantageous because it increases the likelihood of spreading your genes (most of which you share with the group) around. It also seems to explain why chimps in particular engage in similar behavior - of all great apes, their social structure is closest to human hunter/gatherer societies, while gorillas and orangutans are much less similar.
On the practical side of things, we do know that there is a single hormone - oxytocin - which in both humans and chimps seems to promote both altruistic behavior towards member of one's own group (tribe etc), and aggressive behavior (e.g. xenophobia) towards members of other groups. There have been a number of controlled experiments on modern humans establishing correlation for both.
You may also find this article interesting, as it explores the topic of warfare in context of human evolution in considerable detail, including some interesting mathematical models:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5932/1293.full
OK, I will read a paper copy of that 'Science' article at the library (the link you provided leads to a paywall). And I will look for the oxytocin articles.
By the way, in case I was unclear, I am emphatically not making a Rousseau-style "good savage" argument. My point is that warfare is not universally present in human culture, and therefore cannot be explained as "human nature" (it was my objection to that idea that spawned this series of replies). So the presence of warfare in "paleolithic" cultures does not prove the point either way. It's the cultures (e..g., !Kung) that reportedly do *not* have warfare that are interesting from my point of view.
One other thought:
ethologists have build some very convincing models that show that parochial altruism (and the behaviors that follow from it, such as xenophobia and warfare) pretty much inevitably comes up in the evolution of social primates, since, at the stage when you have relatively small groups (of under 100 people) who are mostly relatives, ganging up together against other guys is evolutionary advantageous
Have you seen the bonobo literature? It doesn't correspond to that description at all. They often resolve conflicts with sexual contact, not just within their group but also with other groups of bonobos. I'm not aware of any eyewitness accounts of bonobos killing other bonobos, as individuals or as a group.
There has to be a number of other conditions. Most importantly, there has to be something worth fighting for - i.e. the return must be past a certain threshold, which is not achieved for species that mostly gather, and hunt little. One notable difference between humans and all other great apes is that we have historically had much more meat in our diet - i.e. we hunt (and before tools made that feasible, fed on carrion) more. One hypothesis is that something worth fighting for was carcasses of large animals - a relatively rare find, but single such thing could fit a group for many days, well worth the risk of having a few group members crippled or killed.
Sorry about the paywall. I don't have any better English sources - I could give you some others, but they'd be in Russian (a popular science book on modern anthropology where I've found the reference to the article in question - it explains the gist of it also).
The Russian link would be fine. I read Russian.
Forgot about this part.
My point is that warfare is not universally present in human culture, and therefore cannot be explained as "human nature" (it was my objection to that idea that spawned this series of replies).
"Human nature" is by its very nature not a static thing. In any case, even if our genes and culture have co-evolved to make us favor conflict in some circumstances, it doesn't mean that we have to go along with that, especially when we know what makes us tick in that particular way. "Human nature" - i.e. the result of our evolution - has also given us this powerful tool, the brain. Not only it lets us modify our environment at a rate much faster than what normal evolutionary processes can keep the pace up with, but it also lets us observe and analyze the resulting changes and correct our behavior accordingly.
In controlled tests, humans in all cultures exhibit some statistically significant degree of parochial altruism. Nevertheless, some human societies - involving hundreds of millions of people, all "latent xenophobes" by birth - have been consciously working on stamping it out for almost a century now, enshrining equality in law, and punishing openly xenophobic behavior. There's no reason why our treatment of war should be any different. Just because it was a part of our evolutionary baggage doesn't mean that we should keep sticking to it now, or that we can't remake ourselves to behave differently.
As noted before, it's a pop-sci book, not a scientific article (though it does reference such articles throughout the text). Actually, it's two books, the first one focusing on human physiology, the second one on behavior - both well worth a read.
http://lib.rus.ec/b/363123/read
http://lib.rus.ec/b/362895/read
The few chapters that specifically cover parochial altruism and its consequences (including warfare) start here.
there are cultures where war is unknown
Allegedly there is also a culture where the cause of pregnancy is unknown. Don't believe it for a moment. There is a language barrier and there are likely to be taboo subjects that the researcher is not aware of. If war is taboo, then it certainly will not be discussed with an outsider.
I cannot believe this comment was marked as insightful. Human history is a history of war. Your ability to have anything (Including the right to determine what is done with your own body) has always been dependant on your ability to defend it. Slavery and murder have occurred in one form or another in any group of humans of any significant size throughout history, and warfare is just a natural extension of this. A brief glance out into the natural world around us reveals that the strong dominate the weak throughout the animal kingdom. This is not to say that we cannot overcome our darker side to a certain extent, even today. Indeed, I think it is the duty of all rational beings to try and do so. But to deny that humanity has a darker side is naive at best.
I'm talking specifically about war: the resolution of conflict using lethal group violence. Not about the strong dominating the weak, nor about self-defense, murder or slavery. I did not deny that humanity has a darker side. I was objecting to the idea that war is because of "human nature". I think the case for that is unproven because:
1. The archaeological record shows that there is no evidence of warfare before 10-13k years ago. Someone in a different branch of this thread objected that that might be because the human population was so sparse back then. It's an interesting idea and I plan to do some reading on that.
2. There are human cultures that lack war (the !Kung of the Kalahari). Would you agree that if there is a human culture where groups of humans live near each other without war, war cannot be "human nature"?
3. People often do not want war and are tricked into accepting it by leaders using organized propaganda who know that they must find a pretext for war (for example, the Tonkin non-incident, or the Iraqi WMD debacle).
4. There's another interesting book called 'On Killing', by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. He argues that, until military forces started to psychologically condition soldiers using video games and more realistic weapon drills, most soldiers did not fire their weapons or aimed over the heads of the enemy. Dave Grossman is a lecturer at West Point.
I do not believe that we can end conflict. In fact, as an enthusiastic supporter of pluralism I think conflict can be a good thing. But I do believe we can eliminate war as a means of conflict resolution.
Look for a book called "Debt: The First 5000 Years" by David Graeber - I've not finished reading it myself, but it supports your position I'm fairly sure.
I had such a tub, and it sounded right. They aren't fiberglass, but are a plastic sandwich with a fiberglass sheet in the middle for strength. Pressing everything together without air or such does sound about right, and they like high pressures for that.
The real WTF is why we aren't getting a metal tub lined with porcelain. The old tubs are better than the plastic ones. I've never had anything but trouble with the plastic ones.
Learn to love Alaska
USA is mostly metric now. I remember in the 1980s when the mechanics I knew who worked on US cars complained about having to re-buy tools for the metric sizes in American cars. The old engines (Chevy small block from the 60s, still sold in new cars 30+ years later) may have been English, but the new 4-cyls developed in the 80s were metric, and other parts were going along with them. Even worse if you bought one of the US cars made by a Japanese company. All metric, and the American car mechanics were expected to work on it because it was GM.
Learn to love Alaska
It's time to buzz the tower!
Tom, even in a modern fighter jet you can't outrun the gay thoughts.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
"high pressure", sure, but I don't buy that ordinary bathtubs are produced with pressures an order of magnitude higher than the one-off highest-pressure-in-the-world forge can generate.