Great Fictional World War III book (China & allies VS US & allies)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Finn McCool said:

I would like to comment on how you deflect Jeff's criticism of the Chinese government's authoritarianism by offering examples of American human rights violations, etc. This is less for you dioditto and more for Americans. Every time we allow things like "indefinate detentions" at Guantanamo to happen, we undermine the case for democracy everywhere by allowing people to make the argument that dioditto is making here. And that makes us less secure as Americans. It's not a legitimate argument but it is fig leaf anyone can hide behind. It is a fact that as dioditto sarcastically stated the the US is the beacon of democracy (and I don't mean that in an insincere neoconservative way), and when that beacon is dimmed, it becomes easier for the ships it is guiding to crash on the rocks.

Sorry for the politics, I just wanted to make a point to all Americans out there.

Click to expand...

It's hardly *just* the Guantanamo as isolated case here. There are Abu Garib, and MORE THAN 2 DOZEN CIA Covert Prisons around the world we are talking about here, that are doing outright human rights abuse and executions. None of these CIA Covert Prisons were even acknowledged, and that is what makes it much worst than Guantanamo, because the level of abuses are probably too ugly to even acknowledge. Guantanamo is atleast a publically acknowledged prison, so it has to be accounted for at some point, and the abuse is already this ugly; I can't even fathom what kind of abuse that are currently happening in these CIA blacksites. How are these different from the human rights abuse in China? (Except these "blacksites" are situated oversea) This is not merely a "fig leaf" we are talking about here.


Various experts, who have toured or worked at Guantanamo have all agreed that more than 80% of the inmates there are innocent. They are merely victims of tribal conflicts. And yet, here we are, many of them still remained in these prison under intensive and cruel torture daily. Ofcourse, I do not condone the Chinese human rights abuse, but to point a finger at China while painted itself as flawless is balant act of hypocrisy.


The beacon of democracy didn't just dimmed, it is TOTALLY SNUFF OUT.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

dioditto said:

Okay Jeff, here is my review of the book (and the critique). And it is going to be harsh.

You painted a very one sided, and extremely unfavourable view of the Chinese people to say the least (perhaps to support your racist view). You should be aware, it is America who invented, and play such game at much greater scale. (Read "The confession of economic hitman")

The characterisation of Jian Zemin is...well.. it seems Dr. Fu Manchu has been reincarnated into the body of a President!! The character is shallow and one dimensional to say the least.

Also, curiously, how does a general run for president? I am not familiar with the american law, but I thought for a general to seek presidency, don't you have to be a senator, or a state governor first? But your prediction of "successful prosecution of Terrorism" rings hollow right now. Both Iraq and Afganistan, are looking more like Vietnam than a success.


What you envision to be the "Bower Doctrine for reconstruction and reconstitution after the war" in reality, seems to be just the same o' American puppet regime trick, it didn't work in South America and Vietnam, and it certainly didn't work in the current Iraq. A democracy that's forced upon the local population, already violated the very spirit it tries to foster, so how can it work?


The book continues with much christian fundamentalist viewpoints, and repeatly hinted white supremacy. What you really wish for, is for the local population of the world subjugated to the "white america". That is pretty much sum up the whole exercise of this book. Tactics, strategy, and technology mention in this book all reinforce your underlying racist ideological view.

I like your creative illustrations, but I think that's all I like about it.
I don't like to say this, (and I really don't) but your writing exude such prejudice. I certainly didn't like your racist outlook and its view on life projected from this fictional book.

Click to expand...

Well, you are entitled to your view. IMHO, there is nothing rascists about the book, although I do attempt, throughout the book, to take on the authoritative governmental form and those who perpetuate it. But, I believe that your view of it in that light (ie as rascist) is extremely jaundiced. As I have said earlier, my views regarding the Chinese people and their governmnet are posted on this thread for all to see.

IMHO, you have basically taken your political points and your unfounded views of my person and projected them onto a very few portions of the book when the vast majority of the book is about World War III and the technologies and strategies that might be applied there. Hey, that's your right, you can post, say, or think whatever you want about the book.

As to how a former General runs for President, please do a Government 101 on America. Any citizen 35 years of age or older, who is natural born and not a felon can run for President. Washington, Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower, etc., etc., were all former generals who ran as citizens.

I make no apologies. The book is also about fundamental American values and those have nothing to do with rascism. Slavery was a blight upon this country that did not represent the founding principles. It was a horrible compromise at the time that had to be destroyed later at the cost of a million American lives...which, OBTW, the American people themselves fought out and resolved on their own. Say what you will about America, but this nation fought one of the most brutal and booldy civil wars over our own form of government and in resolution of that glaring issue over 140 years ago.

Do we still have problems...you bet...but any claim that American liberty and republican government (because it is not and was never meant to be a pure democracy) is snuffed out is simply overboard and a gross misrepresentation of fact and common sense IMHO...but as I said, you are free to believe whatever you want.

In the end, thanks for your opinion...even if I do not agree with it. I do not fear or shy away from critique and I sincerely thank you for it...it was certainly not my intent to project the types of things you read into the writing. If you get the chance to read that part, or care to comment on it, I would be interested in your thoughts on the military aspects and technologies found in the book...I believe that is what we should focus on in this thread to avoid rancor, further misunderstanding, and arguement.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Finn McCool said:

by allowing people to make the argument that dioditto is making here. And that makes us less secure as Americans. It's not a legitimate argument but it is fig leaf anyone can hide behind. It is a fact that as dioditto sarcastically stated the the US is the beacon of democracy (and I don't mean that in an insincere neoconservative way), and when that beacon is dimmed, it becomes easier for the ships it is guiding to crash on the rocks.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reasoned comments. I agree in principle with your statements and believe it is up to the American people to make sure it does not occur...and the American people will vote on these issues and change the course of state when necessary. Our history proves this beyond doubt. It is my prayer that conditions like the fiction that is written of in Dragon's Fury never occur. War, though it may sometimes be necessary, is hell and a scurge for everyone involved.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Jeff Head said:

Well, you are entitled to your view. IMHO, there is nothing rascists about the book, although I do attempt, throughout the book, to take on the authoritative governmental form and those who perpetuate it. But, I believe that your view of it in that light (ie as rascist) is extremely jaundiced. As I have said earlier, my views regarding the Chinese people and their governmnet are posted on this thread for all to see.

Click to expand...

So, Jeff, I just like to know what do you mean by this?

"In addition, our entire society has been watered down by a form of political correctness and immoral socialization that I believe the founders of this nation would have fought to prevent."

Click to expand...

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

dioditto, judging from your posts I think you may have a misunderstanding regarding what the term "political correctness" actually means.

Basically it means doing all you can to avoid offending other people, most commonly through speech. For example, old racial slurs are now pretty much taboo, "crippled" is now rarely acceptable, the Politically Correct term is, "handicapped" (or even "specially abled"). Some argue that too much PC makes it impossible to discuss controversial issues because people focus too much on semantics.

I am not sure what was meant by "immoral socialization", though. But rest assured, PC's original purpose is to go AGAINST racism, or at the very least overt racism.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

The_Zergling said:

dioditto, judging from your posts I think you may have a misunderstanding regarding what the term "political correctness" actually means.

Basically it means doing all you can to avoid offending other people, most commonly through speech. For example, old racial slurs are now pretty much taboo, "crippled" is now rarely acceptable, the Politically Correct term is, "handicapped" (or even "specially abled"). Some argue that too much PC makes it impossible to discuss controversial issues because people focus too much on semantics.

I am not sure what was meant by "immoral socialization", though. But rest assured, PC's original purpose is to go AGAINST racism, or at the very least overt racism.

Click to expand...

Ofcourse, that is also why I am asking.

"In addition, our entire society has been watered down by a form of political correctness and immoral socialization that I believe the founders of this nation would have fought to prevent."

Click to expand...

If majority of PC terms was to avoid racial stereotype/slurs, and the subsequent phrase "immoral socialization", my reading of this is that it is about "race" and the immorality of "socializing" of race. In other word, he is suggesting racial segregation. This doesn't help with the fact, he brings up the "founding fathers" - who are known to be racist/slaveowners themselves.
So unless this is a giant misunderstanding on my part, I like to know exactly what Jeff meant.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

dioditto said:

So, Jeff, I just like to know what do you mean by this?

Click to expand...

I will answer this last question because I believe you are sincere in asking it...otherwise, I will no longer respond to political and ideological issues on this thread. Immoral as in immorlity...there are too numerous examples to list (ie. the entire welfare system which encourages illegitimacy, break down in marriage, the entire abortion industry, the assault on traditional marriage, etc., etc.)...but it certainly had not relation to race or rascism and in that respect, yes, it is a giant misunderstanding on your part.

Socialization as in taking tax moneys and applying them to such issues when the private sector should be free to address such issues without coersion...etc., etc....using its own monies through churches and charitable contributions...which the American people are typically more than willing to do. Most of these social programs are nothing more than politicians pandering for votes, appealing to the most base human tendancies and thereby economically enslaving the reciepients (IMHO) in the process...which is why the founders would have fought it. Nothing dealing with race was intended...that, IMHO as the writer, is something you are reading into it on your own.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

dioditto said:

If majority of PC terms was to avoid racial stereotype/slurs, and the subsequent phrase "immoral socialization", my reading of this is that it is about "race" and the immorality of "socializing" of race. In other word, he is suggesting racial segregation. This doesn't help with the fact, he brings up the "founding fathers" - who are known to be racist/slaveowners themselves.
So unless this is a giant misunderstanding on my part, I like to know exactly what Jeff meant.

Click to expand...

I think what he meant by "immoral socializtion" is the imbedding of certain behaviors, practices and governmental policies into American life that Jeff believes are immoral. I think.

As for the Founding Fathers being racist and slaveholders, that is a totally unfair characterization of what those men stood for. They were rich in an economy in which wealth demanded the use of slave labor. And they were raised in an atmosphere of racism. Thus their views, in light of their context, are very progressive by the standards of the time. And even more, you have to balance any personal beliefs they had against their impact on history. In the end the ideals they espoused and embedded into the fabric of American society brought an end to slavery and widespread racism. People need to learn to seperate the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers from what they passed on in our body of laws (i.e. religion, as well as race relations.) and in the overall spirit of our laws.

It's hardly *just* the Guantanamo as isolated case here. There are Abu Garib, and MORE THAN 2 DOZEN CIA Covert Prisons around the world we are talking about here, that are doing outright human rights abuse and executions. None of these CIA Covert Prisons were even acknowledged, and that is what makes it much worst than Guantanamo, because the level of abuses are probably too ugly to even acknowledge. Guantanamo is atleast a publically acknowledged prison, so it has to be accounted for at some point, and the abuse is already this ugly; I can't even fathom what kind of abuse that are currently happening in these CIA blacksites. How are these different from the human rights abuse in China? (Except these "blacksites" are situated oversea) This is not merely a "fig leaf" we are talking about here.


Various experts, who have toured or worked at Guantanamo have all agreed that more than 80% of the inmates there are innocent. They are merely victims of tribal conflicts. And yet, here we are, many of them still remained in these prison under intensive and cruel torture daily. Ofcourse, I do not condone the Chinese human rights abuse, but to point a finger at China while painted itself as flawless is balant act of hypocrisy.


The beacon of democracy didn't just dimmed, it is TOTALLY SNUFF OUT.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the sort of arguement that I was warning about in my earlier post. By allowing their government to commit human rights abuses the American people are inadvertently making suffering worse for innocents in other countries (as well as innocents in their own country/custody, but that's not what I'm talking about) because it means there is no political pressure internationally on worse human rights violators.

But it is also unfair to say that democracy in the US is "total snuffed out". The very fact that the Democrats won the midterm elections disproves that. Now that political momentum has shifted human rights abuses will become a real issue in that Congress will (hopefully) investigate them. That trade-off of political power means that no one political power will ever be able to completely execute its agenda which is a strength that democracy has over authoritarianism, a theme of Jeff's book, which is how I bring all of this back on topic.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Dioditto, how could you possibly interpret a phrase like "immoral socialization" as a bigoted attack upon inter-racial contact? That is quite far out, no offense. The phrase obviously has something to do about morals and socialist policies, not racial segregation.

(Note for Jeff, I'd like to disagree with you about your views on the follies of social programs and welfare, but you didn't write a book about it so I won't debate it. )

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

To come to some military aspects:

I liked that "HailStorm" technology you introduced. Those pallats seem to deliver much energy (high speed) onto small spots while causing little momentum (small, light weight) to the CM. But when firing lots of them in short time from all three guns, will that CM still maintain a stable flight path?

The first LRASD attack on CTF 77. Those devices were lauched from great distance and traveling with close to 50kts(?) How fast travels a CTF, 25kts? That speed advantages is not much so the "killer whales" must be send on a direct intercept course to run into the middle of a CTF in a sea as big as the pacific. Was it just luck and the worst case for the CTF, or would it be that "easy" to hit the CTF?
Awefull weapons, though.

I somehow think nuke powered SSTO tech. is still some more years off, but on the other hand R&D is possibly increased significantly in war.

Somewhere in another thread you mentioned the retireing of the Tomcat/Phoenix combo saying the navy had no adequate alternativ. AESAs can surely fill the sensor gap. But if I'm correct "your" navy was relying on -120Ds. Don't you think ramjet powered missiles could play a vital role in the future of fleet-defence?