What's Going to Happen to GM and Ford?

Locked
Cosima__J

What's Going to Happen to GM and Ford?

Post by Cosima__J » Thu May 05, 2005 2:06 pm

Are American made cars going to become as extinct as dinosaurs? I just read that Standard and Poors Ratings Services have downgraded credit ratings for General Motors and for Ford to junk status. Can companies survive for long with that designation?

Seems like the troubles for GM and Ford are really piling up. They are losing market share here to the Japanese and Koreans (and soon to the Chinese?). High gas prices are finally causing Americans to question whether they really need any more of those monster Expeditions, Denalis etc. Not to mention the problem of paying for health care for employees and pensions for retirees.

Are there any bright spots on the horizon for our car makers?

Modernistfan
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 5:23 pm

Post by Modernistfan » Thu May 05, 2005 2:31 pm

Not unless they start making vehicles that combine quality, reliability, fuel economy, and up-to-date engineering. At this point, I would not buy an American car even if someone put a gun to my head. Since 1975, when I started buying new cars, I have owned three Toyotas, an Acura, and two Hondas. I am starting to look for a new small car, and, at this point, the contenders are the new Honda Civic to be introduced in 2006, the Acura RSX, or the Mazda 3.

I am frankly amazed that many American cars continue to use the out-of-date overhead valve 2-valve-per-cylinder layout derived from the big V8 engines of the mid-1950's while virtually the entire rest of the world, including the Japanese, has gone to single-overhead-cam or double-overhead cam layouts with four valves per cylinder. Not only does that more modern layout greatly improve efficiency and with it, fuel economy, but it gives you far more oomph at highway speeds because the engines rev much more willingly. I still remember the sinking feeling the last time I struggled to pass a truck on a two-lane road with an American rental car a couple of years ago. When I finally got it up to 65, I was thinking, "my Acura (with a 1.8-liter 4-cylinder engine at that time) would be doing at least 80 at this point."

The Americans clearly missed the boat again on hybrids. How could they assume that people would not want better fuel economy?

I just took my Honda in for a 50,000-mile service and the single thing it needed was new wiper blades. This in a week when Ford announced a recall of millions of trucks because they are exploding.

Sorry for the jobs lost, but good riddance.

BWV 1080
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:05 pm

Re: What's Going to Happen to GM and Ford?

Post by BWV 1080 » Thu May 05, 2005 2:51 pm

Cosima__J wrote:Are American made cars going to become as extinct as dinosaurs? I just read that Standard and Poors Ratings Services have downgraded credit ratings for General Motors and for Ford to junk status. Can companies survive for long with that designation?
We still have airlines :) The auto companies caved into the unions, have huge underfunded pension liabilities and produce inferior products to the Japanese. That being said, they will stick around. Junk credit ratings or even chapter 11 won't put GM or Ford out of business.

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Thu May 05, 2005 3:22 pm

I'm considering buying the new Iraqi "Saddam Coupe" which was featured in the Automobiles section of the Times last week. With startup $$$ from Uncle Sam, this line looks to be both economical and exciting. It's hybrid and the brakes are supplemented by a floor panel to allow quick foot-assisted braking.

Through a special arrangement with both XM and SIRIUS Department of Defense news bulletins are always available.

Anyone joining me?
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

operafan
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:18 am
Location: San francisco

Re: What's Going to Happen to GM and Ford?

Post by operafan » Thu May 05, 2005 8:10 pm

BWV 1080 wrote:
Cosima__J wrote:Are American made cars going to become as extinct as dinosaurs? I just read that Standard and Poors Ratings Services have downgraded credit ratings for General Motors and for Ford to junk status. Can companies survive for long with that designation?
We still have airlines :) The auto companies caved into the unions, have huge underfunded pension liabilities and produce inferior products to the Japanese. That being said, they will stick around. Junk credit ratings or even chapter 11 won't put GM or Ford out of business.
Maybe GM and Ford will ask for a bail out a la Chrystler, let a few years pass, and let the Germans buy them out. Bad thing though, for the Germans. Check all the 2 star out of 5 star ratings in Consumer Reports for 'Mercedes'. The cynical part of me says they should sell the electric car production line to the Japaneese (as they did the hybred motor patents) since GM and Ford aren't using the electric car production line anymore, having sent the electric cars (which they would only lease and never sell despite demand) to the crushers.

The airlines are in a mess as well - the govenment stepping back into the biz to deal with their bankruptcies (on NPR Sunday night).

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu May 05, 2005 9:56 pm

General Motors legacy costs
By Lou Ann Hammond

"What is good for General Motors is good for America - Chairman and CEO, Charlie Wilson, 1955.
Today this could be,
What is true for General Motors is true for America.

Are companies obligated to take care of ex-employees till they die? If there is no job guarantee, why should your life be guaranteed? What does a company do when they have negotiated unsustainable obligations?

A couple of weeks ago Pulitzer prize automotive writer Dan Neil wrote a column blasting Bob Lutz and Rick Wagoner, saying, basically, that the Pontiac G6 was another reason General Motors was going to go to metal heaven and that the top guy should go with it. I will give Mr. Neil that General Motors isn’t hitting the mark on some of their cars, especially when they are compared by price in their competitive segment.

Every car company has product cycle problems and many have ridden them out. General Motors has a problem that eats away at their profit like no other company, it is their legacy costs. These problems have been gathering steam since 1950 when negotiations for pension and healthcare started, long before Bob Lutz or Rick Wagoner were in power.

General Motors marketshare is going down and has been for some time. Ford has the same problems. With every new car manufacturer coming into America, including China soon, their marketshare may continue to go down. According to Stefan Weinman spokesman for General Motors, General Motors spends $5.2 billion on health care for 1.1 million people, equaling $4,727 annually per person. People can buy cheaper cars and get the same value without the health care costs of $1,525 built into every vehicle made. Add another $675 per car for pension costs. Other car companies may have these problems, but not for some time. BMW, Nissan, Toyota and Mercedes all build cars here in the United States with American employees, but those employees are new and very few have retired.

General Motors is the world’s largest automaker, selling nearly 9 million cars and trucks worldwide last year. It is the third-largest business in the United States, with revenue of $193 billion last year. Despite the incentives that kept sales high during America’s economic slowdown, General Motors is losing marketshare and people are saying it is because their cars are no good. They are saying that the Big Three will have troubles because of the economic and production gaps between the non-union assembly lines set up South of the Mason Dixon line, save for a couple of plants, by Japanese and European competitors. They are saying that General Motors is too concerned about their big cars and not as concerned about smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. They are saying that there are too many cars in general and that General Motors could get rid of a couple of lines.

General Motors oldest retiree will be 110 years old this year. The employee worked for GM for 32 years and has been collecting pension and health benefits for 47 years. If this employee dies and leaves behind a spouse, the spouse will get a partial part of his benefits.

General Motors reported its worst financial quarter in 13 years on Tuesday, posting a net loss of $1.10 billion, or $1.95 per share. In the first quarter of 2004, GM earned a profit of $1.2 billion, or $2.12 per share. According to General Motors it needs to be a 28-29 percent marketshare company to survive. They claim that 98 percent of their costs are fixed costs. The 1.2 billion profit was made from selling product helped along by incentives. If that 5.2 billion health care cost weren’t there General Motors would report a gain for the year.

Some of these problems are the same problems America itself is looking at when they look at Social Security and health care. When Social Security was enacted the average life expectancy was below 70 years of age. Today, General Motors is paying pension to retired folks who are over 100 years old. Along with that they pay a part of their medical costs. When these contracts were negotiated there were no stop-gap measures put in force. Now, General Motors is paying the price. Because of the excellent health care they are able to receive, retired folks are living longer and collecting longer pensions.

For every worker working at General Motors they are footing the bill for 2.5 retired workers. The picture is not going to get any better as long as the UAW isn’t willing to make concessions. What concessions could the UAW make? How about going on par with what the blue-collared salaried workers make and then negotiate to the national averages.

The UAW pays 7 percent for their medical benefits while the salaried employees pay 27 percent for the same medical benefits. The national average paid for medical benefits is 32 percent. According to Jerry Dubrowski, another help would be if all employees purchased generic drugs. "Even if you pay a $5 co-pay, GM pays the rest of the amount for the brand name drug. Generic drugs are cheaper. If we could educate our workers and negotiate a different co-pay amount if a person bought generic vs. brand name the savings would be substantial."

The retirement program is just beginning. Nearly half of the 302,500 UAW members at the Big Three, Delphi and Visteon will have the necessary combination of age and years of service to retire within the next five years. 60 percent of those UAW members are GM/Delphi, 39 percent Ford/Visteon and 33 percent Daimler Chrysler. If General Motors 180,000 members retired before they were eligible for 80 percent of their Social Security GM would pay them $32,000 per year. After that GM would pay the retirees, or their spouse, an average of $16,900.

These problems won’t go away, but they can be lessened. According to Paul Taylor, chief economist, National Automobile Dealer Association (NADA), "GM still has plenty of time to turn in a decent sales year. With the economy continuing to show strength, automobile sales should hold up well, producing sales of 16.9 million units for the year says Paul Taylor, NADA’s chief economist. Two key issue should be understood. Big 3 North American manufacturers will continue to have difficulty maintaining market share unless they are willing to price effectively as consumers desire. And luxury vehicle sales will continue to be lackluster as long as the stock market underperforms expectations for it driven by expected stronger earnings."

The bigger more luxurious cars are the ones that carry more profit. As the dollar weakens it is more expensive for Europeans and Asians to bring their smaller cars to the United States. This could be the well needed shot in the arm that General Motors and Ford needs. Product will help both GM and Ford with their legacy costs. However, Toyota, Nissan and Honda are making forays into the pickup truck market that will weaken the grip GM and Ford have on that segment of the market.

This week the United Auto Workers (UAW) union held their regularly scheduled annual conference. UAW Vice President Dick Shoemaker, in charge of the GM relationship said "there is some flexibility within the agreement to do something" while UAW President Ron Gettelfinger stated that GM hasn’t asked the union to reopen the contract. According to Paul Krell, spokesman for the UAW, "The United States is the only advanced industrial nation that doesn’t have national health care. Our current President and Congress are not going to institute a single-payer insurance program."

Even though foreign governments cover most health-care and pension costs don’t expect our government to do so. President Bush is trying to convince the American public that they should invest in their own future, so that the government doesn’t have to. If he wanted to put this country at a more competitive position globally he would talk about insuring each person with a basic health coverage, nationally.

According to Automotive News, "DaimlerChrysler is in talks to set up a China venture that would make and export Chrysler cars to North America, a top executive said on Thursday, sketching a politically charged move." In China, car makers generally pay about $1.95 an hour in wages and benefits. By comparison, DaimlerChrysler pays its German workers about $49.50 an hour, and its U.S. workers about $36.50 an hour. The UAW countered with a press release that talked about unfair trade practices and said, "U.S. autoworkers are prepared to compete with workers anywhere in the world based on productivity, quality and innovation. But it’s just plain wrong - for workers in China as well as the United States - to force workers to compete against each other based on who can do a job for the lowest possible wage."

Does the United States care where their cars are made? Or do they consider cars the same as medicine; they are willing to buy generic cars that are cheaper as long as they have the same active ingredients in them?

According to uaw.org the following are vehicles built by UAW members; To be sure the vehicle you are buying is assembled in the United States, check the window sticker, which will list the location of final assembly, and the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is attached to the driver’s side of the dashboard. A VIN beginning with "1," "4" or "5" means the vehicle was assembled in the United States.

2005 Cars and Trucks

Buick LeSabre
Buick Park Avenue
Cadillac CTS
Cadillac DeVille
Cadillac STS
Cadillac XLR
Chevrolet Cavalier
Chevrolet Cobalt
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Malibu
Chevrolet Malibu Maxx
Chrysler Sebring
Dodge Neon
Dodge Stratus
Dodge Viper
Ford Five Hundred
Ford Focus
Ford Freestyle
Ford GT
Ford Mustang
Ford Taurus
Ford Thunderbird
Lincoln LS
Lincoln Town Car
Mazda 6
Mercury Montego
Mercury Sable
Mitsubishi Eclipse
Mitsubishi Galant
Pontiac Bonneville
Pontiac G6
Pontiac Grand Am
Pontiac Solstice
Pontiac Sunfire
Pontiac Vibe
Saturn ION
Saturn L300
Toyota Corolla

PICKUP TRUCKS

Chevrolet Colorado
Chevrolet Silverado
Chevrolet SSR
Dodge Dakota
Dodge Ram
Ford F-series
Ford Ranger
GMC Canyon
GMC Sierra
Lincoln Mark LT
Mazda B-series
Toyota Tacoma

SUVs

Cadillac Escalade
Cadillac SRX
Chevrolet Blazer
Chevrolet Suburban
Chevrolet Tahoe
Chevrolet Trail Blazer EXT
Dodge Durango
Ford Escape/Escape Hybrid
Ford Excursion
Ford Expedition
Ford Explorer
Ford Explorer Sport Trac
GMC Envoy XL
GMC Envoy XUV
GMC Yukon/Denali
GMC Yukon XL
Hummer H1
Hummer H2
Hummer H2 SUT
Isuzu Ascender (7-passenger)
Jeep® Grand Cherokee
Jeep® Liberty
Jeep® Wrangler
Lincoln Aviator
Lincoln Navigator
Mazda Tribute
Mercury Mariner
Mercury Mountaineer
Mitsubishi Endeavor
Saturn VUE

VANS

Buick Terraza
Chevrolet Astro
Chevrolet Express
Chevrolet Uplander
Chevrolet Venture
Chrysler Town & Country
Dodge Caravan*/Grand Caravan
Ford E-series
GMC Safari
GMC Savana
Pontiac Montana
Saturn Relay
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Thu May 05, 2005 9:57 pm

Does the world need General Motors?
By Lou Ann Hammond

According to John Casesa, automotive research, Merrill Lynch & Co., "General Motors has $20 billion of cash, pays a $2 annual dividend and believes that it can someday make $10/share under the right conditions. This is not the making of a persuasive argument for concessions. Second, the current contract doesn’t expire until 3Q:07 and we believe it would be risky politically for the UAW leadership to convince its membership, which includes a large retiree constituency (which votes in elections for union leadership) to give up its attractive benefit package until it feels it absolutely has to. In conclusion, we think any discussions between GM and the UAW today represent the beginning of a long process that will conclude more than two years from now when the current contract expires, so, in our view, investors should not expect near-term relief from givebacks." Mr. Casesa is one of several analysts who have downgraded G.M. to a "sell" rating this year.

Back in December of 2000 General Motors announced the phase-out of Oldsmobile. Since then they have writtten down equipment and written off over $500 million on accrual in compensation to Oldsmobile dealers, who have separation agreements. Of the 2,802 dealers 99 percent of them have taken the Transition Financial Assistance Package (TFAP). Phasing out a product line is not cheap and it is an agonizing process. In the end the plant will probably be retooled and reopened. The employees will either go to work on another product line or will be given severance packages and start collecting their pension and health care costs, all of which will be added to the accumulating fixed cost General Motors is burdened with already.

The UAW used to hold a purpose for workers, but with every other car company manufacturing cars in America without the UAW is there still a need for them? The UAW does all it can to keep General Motors from shipping its production of vehicles to Mexico and China, but does it sit down at the table and talk to General Motors about what it can do to realistically keep General Motors, and itself, as an ongoing concern?

The lack of loyalty the car manufacturers are seeing is indigenous to the marketplace in general. It is brought on by disloyalty from companies to their employees and the general public watching big companies play shell games with their money. Forget the brand loyalty of yesteryear, folks are going for the cheapest they can find that still have the active ingredients that are needed, whether it be over-the-counter drugs, prescription medicine or cars.

And don’t expect a loan from the government either; Any company that has gone to the government looking for handouts or loans has asked their unions to make concessions beforehand. In the case of United Airlines some of the unions have conceded three times and they are still not out of the woods. General Motors shouldn’t dream of going to the government without asking the UAW to concede some of its benefits.

General Motors needs to find some answers for its product and legacy problems. GM is too big, with too many lives at risk to have it go under. General Motors is the world’s largest automaker, selling nearly 9 million cars and trucks worldwide last year. It is the third-largest business in the United States, with revenue of $193 billion last year.

Losing them would would be felt all around the world. According to Wards Auto, General Motors is a lot more global than most people realize.

AM GENERAL

AM General builds Hummer vehicles for GM. GM supplies technology and parts for the Hummer vehicles and has rights to market the brand.

AVTOVAZ

AvtoVAZ and GM have an assembly joint venture in Togliatti, Russia. Each owns a 41.5% stake. It currently produces Lada Niva 2123-based Chevrolet Niva small SUVs and will add output of Opel Astras.

BMW

GM supplies automatic transmissions to BMW. The two auto makers also are teaming up to jointly develop hydrogen refueling standards as part of a goal to have affordable hydrogen vehicles on sale by 2010.

BERTONE

Bertone builds the convertible and coupe versions of the Astra. Bertone also did development work for Saab on the 9X concept, but the production program for that car has been " postponed." It also designed the body for the GM Hy-wire concept car.

BRILLIANCE

Shenyang Brilliance, a joint venture between First Auto Works and Brilliance, has a joint venture building SUVs in Shenyang, China with GM.

CHINESE AUTOMOBILE

Taiwan’s Chinese Automobile Co. Ltd. assembles and markets Opels for GM.

DAEWOO

In late 2002, Daewoo completed the transfer of several of its assets to GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. Ltd. GM Daewoo is owned 42.1% by GM, 14.9% by Suzuki, 10% by China’s SAIC and 33% by former Daewoo creditors. Former Daewoo assets included in GM Daewoo are manufacturing facilities in Changwon and Kunsan, South Korea, and Hanoi, Vietnam, as well as nine overseas sales subsidiaries and parts operations in Europe. Daewoo supplies vehicles, powertrains and components to GM Daewoo from its Bupyong, South Korea, plant in a deal that runs for six years. GM Daewoo supplies components and vehicle kits for assembly by some Daewoo foreign joint ventures.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER

GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler have several co-research projects under the direction of USCAR. Among them are projects on auto emissions and environmental pollution, advanced-battery and electric-vehicle technology and structural plastics. The three auto makers also have a partnership with the U.S. government called " New Vision for the 21st Century Truck Partnership," aimed at developing more fuel-efficient trucks and buses. DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Nissan, Renault and Peugeot own stakes in Covisint, an e-business exchange. DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors have a joint venture, named Route One, to create a uniform dealer credit application system.

FORD

GM and Ford are developing automatic transmissions together. Each will build the units at its own plant. GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler have several co-research projects under the direction of USCAR. Among them are projects on auto emissions and environmental pollution, advanced-battery and electric-vehicle technology and structural plastics. The three auto makers also have a partnership with the U.S. government called " New Vision for the 21st Century Truck Partnership," aimed at developing more fuel-efficient trucks and buses. DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors have a joint venture, named Route One, to create a uniform dealer credit application system. Ford and GM own a stake in Budget Rent-A-Car Systems in Australia. GM supplies automatic transmissions to Volvo. DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Nissan, Renault and Peugeot own stakes in Covisint, an e-business exchange.

FUJI Heavy Industries/ Subaru

GM owns a 20% stake in Fuji Heavy and the two are co-developing vehicle technology and complete vehicle platforms for use by Subaru, Saab and other GM brands. GM, Fuji and Suzuki are working together on recycling initiatives in Europe to meet end-of-life regulations there. GM’s purchasing joint venture with Fiat performs some purchasing for Fuji. GM sells Saabs through Fuji dealers in Japan.

HONDA

Honda will supply 3.5L V-6 engines and automatic transmissions for the Saturn Vue as part of a 5-year agreement that gets under way in 2003. Honda uses GM’s OnStar communication system in its Acura vehicles.

ISUZU

GM owns 12% of Isuzu and the partnership between the two companies is extensive. GM makes Isuzu-based medium-duty trucks for Isuzu at its Flint, MI, plant. GM’s purchasing joint venture with Fiat performs some purchasing for Isuzu. The two exchange components, including engines, and share engineering and some sales and distribution activities. Omnibus Transportes SA in Ecuador, 53% owned by GM, assembles GM, Suzuki and Isuzu vehicles. GM owns 57.7% of General Motors Kenya Ltd., which assembles cars and Isuzu commercial vehicles. Joint venture GM Egypt S.A.E. is owned 31% by GM and 20% by Isuzu. Industries Mecaniques Maghrebines in Tunisia is owned 4.8% by GM and 2.4% by Isuzu. GM owns a minority interest in Isuzu’s diesel engine businesses. Isuzu-General Motors Australia Ltd. is a 60/40 Isuzu/GM joint venture. GM also assembles Isuzu trucks in several overseas countries. GM owns 51% of General Motors Isuzu Commercial Truck LLC.

LOTUS

GM and Lotus have developed engines together. Lotus Cars is building GM’s Vauxhall VX220/Opel Speedster sports car at its Hethel, U.K., production center.

MAGNA

Magna builds the Saab 9-3 convertible in Austria.

MG ROVER

GM supplies transmissions to MG Rover.

MITSUBISHI

A Mitsubishi subsidiary supplies parts to GM under a contract that runs through 2005.

NISSAN

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Nissan, Renault and Peugeot own stakes in Covisint, an e-business exchange. Nissan gets a version of the vans co-developed by Renault and GM.

PEUGEOT

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Nissan, Renault and Peugeot own stakes in Covisint, an e-business exchange.

PININFARINA

Pininfarina performed design work for the Buick Excelle, based on the Daewoo Nubira from joint venture Daewoo Auto & Technology Ltd., owned by GM, Suzuki and Shanghai Auto. The car is built at the Shanghai-GM joint venture in China.

PORSCHE

Porsche helped develop 2.5L 6-cyl. engines produced by GM Australian subsidiary Holden’s.

RENAULT

GM supplies axles and other components to Renault. GM sells Argentina-built Renault Trafic vans in Brazil and Renault sells Brazil-built GM models in Argentina. GM and Renault collaborated on the development of light-commercial vans and the two build vans for each other. Teksid, owned 33.5% by Renault, supplies cylinder heads to GM. DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Nissan, Renault and Peugeot own stakes in Covisint, an e-business exchange.

SHANGHAI

GM and Shanghai Automotive have a car-building joint venture in Shanghai, China, called Shanghai-GM Automotive Co. Ltd. The JV also produces engines, transmission and stampings and has responsibility for vehicle marketing and distribution. GM and SAIC also have a vehicle assembly JV in Yantai, China, owned 25% by GM, 25% by SAIC and 50% by Shanghai-GM Automotive. GM and SAIC are partners in SAIC-Wuling Automotive Co. Ltd., a vehicle assembly operation in Liuzhou, China. SAIC-Wuling is owned 51.1% by SAIC, 34% by GM and 15.9% by Liuzhou Wuling Automotive Co. Ltd. GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. Ltd. is a joint venture owned 42.1% by GM, 14.9% by Suzuki, 10% by SAIC and 33% by former Daewoo creditors. Former Daewoo assets included in GM Daewoo are manufacturing facilities in Changwon and Kunsan, South Korea, and Hanoi, Vietnam, as well as nine overseas sales subsidiaries and parts operations in Europe.

SUZUKI

GM owns 20% of Suzuki. Suzuki holds a 0.7% stake in GM and a 2% stake in General Motors de Argentina. The two companies have collaborated on vehicle platforms and co-own an assembly venture in Canada, CAMI Automotive Inc. Suzuki and GM are assembling vehicles together at GM de Venezuela CA. The cars are sold through GM’s sales network. Suzuki builds vehicles for GM in Japan. GM’s purchasing joint venture with Fiat performs some purchasing for Suzuki. GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. Ltd. is a joint venture owned 42.1% by GM, 14.9% by Suzuki, 10% by China’s SAIC and 33% by former Daewoo creditors. Former Daewoo assets included in GM Daewoo are manufacturing facilities in Changwon and Kunsan, South Korea, and Hanoi, Vietnam, as well as nine overseas sales subsidiaries and parts operations in Europe. GM, Fuji and Suzuki are working together on recycling initiatives in Europe to meet end-of-life regulations there. Suzuki uses GM transmissions in certain vehicles.

TOYOTA

In the U.S., New United Motor Mfg. Inc. (NUMMI), a GM-Toyota joint venture, assembles Corolla derivatives for each to market in North America and Japan. NUMMI also builds Toyota pickup trucks. In 1999, GM and Toyota signed a 5-year research and development agreement to develop advanced propulsion technologies.

OTHER

GM Nigeria Ltd., owned 60% by UAC, 30% by GM and 10% by its employees, builds light and heavy trucks and buses. GM has a vehicle-building joint venture, PT General Motors Buan, in Indonesia. GM has a 25% stake in ELAZ-GM, a venture with Elabuga Automotive Works that produces SUVs from knock-down kits in the Republic of Tartarstan. GM has a 49% stake in South Africa’s Delta Motor Corp. France’s Groupe Henri Heuliez S.A. will build a new 2-seat roadster for Opel beginning in 2004. India’s Hindustan Motors Ltd. supplies engines to GM for use in locally built vehicles.

This page printed from: http://www.carlist.com/autonews/2005/autonews_132.html
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Fri May 06, 2005 3:40 am

Remember Charlie Wilson, EIsenhower's Sec Def? When chairman of GM he boomed "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Haydnseek
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Haydnseek » Fri May 06, 2005 5:32 am

Ralph wrote:Remember Charlie Wilson, EIsenhower's Sec Def? When chairman of GM he boomed "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."
A little clarification:

When he was asked, during the hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee if as secretary of defense he could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively but added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." Later this statement was often garbled when quoted, suggesting that Wilson had said simply, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Fri May 06, 2005 12:20 pm

Thanks for the clarification, Haydn. Ralph can add that one to his Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash quote. :lol:
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Haydnseek
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Haydnseek » Fri May 06, 2005 2:30 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:Thanks for the clarification, Haydn. Ralph can add that one to his Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash quote. :lol:
It was a fussy thing to do but I couldn't resist. Now I wonder if Wilson really said the other well-known quotation attributed to him:

"The problems of the United States can be summed up in two words:
Russia abroad, labor at home.
"
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Fri May 06, 2005 6:28 pm

Haydnseek wrote:
Ralph wrote:Remember Charlie Wilson, EIsenhower's Sec Def? When chairman of GM he boomed "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."
A little clarification:

When he was asked, during the hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee if as secretary of defense he could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively but added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." Later this statement was often garbled when quoted, suggesting that Wilson had said simply, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors
*****

As I've said before, Wikipedia is no authority for me but I did check and the full quote is correct.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Cosima__J

Post by Cosima__J » Mon May 09, 2005 2:31 pm

I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor (April 29, 2005) about the steady rise of imports (not just of cars) and the bad effects on the economy. This sentence jumped out at me:

"Even the giant Japanese auto companies - which only continue to increase their US market share - have become worried, suggesting they might raise prices to help Detroit"

Think that could really happen?

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Mon May 09, 2005 10:19 pm

Cosima__J wrote:I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor (April 29, 2005) about the steady rise of imports (not just of cars) and the bad effects on the economy. This sentence jumped out at me:

"Even the giant Japanese auto companies - which only continue to increase their US market share - have become worried, suggesting they might raise prices to help Detroit"

Think that could really happen?
Interesting, Cos. I see everything thru the prism of national defense and foreign affairs. We, the Japanese and the US, are headed into a very dicey period with a rogue NK and a sly ambitious China ramping up on a number of military fronts to confront us over our dominance of the Pacific. I could see the Japanese thinking that it should do as much as it can to reduce the chance of the US being hijacked by economic problems at just the moment when we need to focus on Asia. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. China and Japan have been funding the Iraq war for us. These two are also strategic competitors in Asia. Japan will certainly go nuclear if NK can't be stopped. China don't want a nuclear Japan. Time to lash up your allies, not piss 'em off for short-term economic advantage.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue May 10, 2005 4:18 am

You really think Japan could develop a nuclear capability, that such a step would be accepted by the people?
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue May 10, 2005 6:06 pm

Ralph wrote:You really think Japan could develop a nuclear capability, that such a step would be accepted by the people?
They already have it. They just haven't announced it. As long as they don't announce it, we can all pretend they don't have it. In the diplomatic world, there's a whole art to not saying things. You can see why I was ill-suited to life in the diplomatic corps.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

operafan
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:18 am
Location: San francisco

Post by operafan » Tue May 10, 2005 7:06 pm

According to Time Mag p.18 (couldn't raise the online version for a URL) the Steath Bombers, fighter jets and assorted other war paraphanelia are being rotated in Guam, I guess that we have a plan of action we aren't speaking about, or maybe this is just a well placed brinksmanship leak. Who knows.

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue May 10, 2005 8:31 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
Ralph wrote:You really think Japan could develop a nuclear capability, that such a step would be accepted by the people?
They already have it. They just haven't announced it. As long as they don't announce it, we can all pretend they don't have it. In the diplomatic world, there's a whole art to not saying things. You can see why I was ill-suited to life in the diplomatic corps.
*****

Very true if you believe Japan has a secret nucelar capacity. :(
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Ted

Post by Ted » Tue May 10, 2005 8:49 pm

They already have it. They just haven't announced it
I worked on the Panasonic / Technics / Matsushita account for 20 years at Bates, so I know a little something about Japanese Techno Culture
If anyone can copy, improve, add to or tweak a product it’s the Japanese
Most people do not know that they are not (or were not) terrific inventors in their own right
Most everything from the transistors to Video Tape technology to Audio Cassettes (Dutch) to CD ROMS to CCD Devices originated right here in the USA
My point: if the Japanese do have nukes, and I agree with CD that they do, they most likely took our designs and improved the hell out of them…with our knowledge..…That’s Chicago!”

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue May 10, 2005 9:22 pm

Ted wrote:
They already have it. They just haven't announced it
I worked on the Panasonic / Technics / Matsushita account for 20 years at Bates, so I know a little something about Japanese Techno Culture
If anyone can copy, improve, add to or tweak a product it’s the Japanese
Most people do not know that they are not (or were not) terrific inventors in their own right
Most everything from the transistors to Video Tape technology to Audio Cassettes (Dutch) to CD ROMS to CCD Devices originated right here in the USA
My point: if the Japanese do have nukes, and I agree with CD that they do, they most likely took our designs and improved the hell out of them…with our knowledge..…That’s Chicago!”
*****

Anyone really interested in Japanese military capability will discover that they are very slowly edging into building a credible naval force that can be deployed throughout the Pacific Rim and they are basically confining themselves to warships of frigate or smaller class (I don't belong to both the U.S. Naval Institute and the Navy League of the U.S. for nothing). Air capability is essentially homeland defense with no real striking capability.

What platforms do the Japanese have for employing their heretofore unknown nuclear capability?
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Tue May 10, 2005 9:26 pm

Any turn toward the good old "GreaterCo-Prosperity Sphere" (I believe that'swhat it was called.)
Werner Isler

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue May 10, 2005 9:34 pm

Werner wrote:Any turn toward the good old "GreaterCo-Prosperity Sphere" (I believe that'swhat it was called.)
*****

It was "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Tue May 10, 2005 9:34 pm

Here's an informative report:

http://japanfocus.org/221.html

The nuclear options and the normal state

Since 1967 Japanese nuclear policy has been limited by the three "non-nuclear principles -- though not as a matter of binding law. The US, despite five decades of pressure on Japan to re-militarize, has consistently opposed Japanese development of a nuclear weapons capacity.

Heisei militarization is compatible with both a nuclear and a non-nuclear Japan. However, the nuclear option is now more open and more attractive than ever before. Moreover, there is a new possibility: that a nuclear-armed Japan could emerge within the US alliance.

The shifts in the balance of strategic incentives and disincentives for medium-sized states to acquire nuclear weapons in an era of proliferation are well understood and apply equally to Japan as to India, Iran or Israel. Less well known is the diminishing influence of once powerful domestic Japanese institutional and cultural constraints on Japanese militarization in general and nuclear weapons acquisition in particular. From the 1950s to the late eighties, powerful peace movements backed by cross-generational public opinion and articulated by substantial opinion in the Diet, constrained Japan's nuclear option. These factors are now weak. The climate of mainstream public discussion -- what is sayable in "respectable" political circles -- has widened dramatically in the past decade. Whereas public calls for nuclear armament were once deeply shocking to the great majority of Japanese citizens, they are now almost commonplace. A slew of public comments and alleged "slips of the tongue" by senior Japanese politicians have opened the way. None of these statements expressed government policy. But their utterance in Japan's symbolically charged political force field has rendered legitimate open discussion of nuclear weapons in the mainstream of Japanese politics.

Concurrently, four decades of firm non-proliferation policy in the US has been eroded in recent years by remarks by senior US policy-makers and influential journalists which have been widely reported in Japan.

In March 2003, Vice-President Dick Cheney raised the possibility of a nuclear-armed Japan as one consequence of a nuclear-armed North Korea. Secondly, in a visit to Tokyo the immediate past Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, asked Japanese politicians if they would consider taking that path if North Korea did in fact get nuclear weapons. Senator John McCain, went one step further, and directly warned China that if it did not prevent North Korean nuclear armament, then it was inevitable that Japan would acquire its own nuclear weapons.

Prominent journalists and academics took the next step. Darling of the Bush establishment, Charles Krauthammer, argued in January 2003 that the US should warn a “recalcitrant” China that, unless it blocked a nuclear North Korea, the US would not only allow Japan to go nuclear but give it the missiles to do so. "If our nightmare is a nuclear North Korea, China’s is a nuclear Japan. It’s time to share nightmares." Charles Pena argued for replacing the US nuclear umbrella over Japan with "two nuclear-armed democratic nations (both with vibrant economies)": Japan and South Korea.

Again, while none of these statements represented US government policy or even a significant trend in US policy circles, many Japanese leaders perceived them to reverse the near-absolute US opposition to Japanese nuclear armament over the previous half century. These American loose lips have shaken many Japanese and thereby transformed the climate of discussion on both sides. This perception was reinforced in Japan by the application of an American double standard to other regional proliferators, some of whom (Israel) were regarded favorably, some of whom were frowned upon but ultimately accepted (Pakistan and India), and some of whom remained highly constrained by American pressure (Taiwan, South Korea). When this perception is joined with the American failure to halt North Korean proliferation, many Japanese leaders feel obliged to entertain the possibility that American-extended nuclear deterrence is a dead letter, along with the prospect that Japan may have to "go-it-alone" on global nuclear security issues.

At the same time, Japan's technical capacity to develop and deploy effective nuclear weapons has grown rapidly in the 1990s. By 2004 Japan's combination of fission and breeder reactors and reprocessing facilities provided undoubted massive and reliable capacity for advanced thermonuclear weapons. With the addition of the powerful H-II and H-IIA rockets, in-flight re-fuelling for fighter-bombers, and military-grade surveillance satellites, Japan now has the undoubted capacity to satisfy all three core requirements for a usable nuclear weapon: a weaponized nuclear device, a sufficiently accurate targeting system, and at least one adequate delivery system. What it lacks -- and this may be an important restraint in the short-term -- are delivery platforms such as submarines to support a secure retaliatory force that would dissuade a nuclear adversary from launching a pre-emptive strike against these hypothetical strategic weapons that would be land-based and vulnerable.

The combination of shifts in the balance of strategic incentives and disincentives, the diminishing of once-powerful domestic restraints, increasingly unclear US non-proliferation policy, and heightened technical capacity renders the move from increasingly common and reputable public policy discussion of Japanese nuclear weapons to policy commitment more feasible and more likely than ever before. The emergence of the possibility that the US may not oppose a nuclear-armed Japanese ally -- like its British, Pakistani and Israeli allies -- heightens that likelihood still more.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Tue May 10, 2005 11:59 pm

Ralph wrote:Very true if you believe Japan has a secret nucelar capacity. :(
Ted's right. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that they have had the "capability" since the Chinese went nuclear in 64. They have, with our concurence and assistance, kept current with the technology all these years. Intel postulates that they could have something ready to go within six months of deciding they need it. The news that NK's cute little missile can reach Japan should go some distance to start chipping away at their public reluctance to deal with defense issues. Their recent public statements of common interests with Taiwan was no idle expression of glad-handing camaradarie among Asians.
Last edited by Corlyss_D on Wed May 11, 2005 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 12:00 am

Werner wrote:Any turn toward the good old "GreaterCo-Prosperity Sphere" (I believe that'swhat it was called.)
It sounds like an Im/Ex company.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 12:06 am

Very interesting and perceptive article, Ralph.
A slew of public comments and alleged "slips of the tongue" by senior Japanese politicians have opened the way. None of these statements expressed government policy. But their utterance in Japan's symbolically charged political force field has rendered legitimate open discussion of nuclear weapons in the mainstream of Japanese politics.

Concurrently, four decades of firm non-proliferation policy in the US has been eroded in recent years by remarks by senior US policy-makers and influential journalists which have been widely reported in Japan.

In March 2003, Vice-President Dick Cheney raised the possibility of a nuclear-armed Japan as one consequence of a nuclear-armed North Korea. Secondly, in a visit to Tokyo the immediate past Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, asked Japanese politicians if they would consider taking that path if North Korea did in fact get nuclear weapons. Senator John McCain, went one step further, and directly warned China that if it did not prevent North Korean nuclear armament, then it was inevitable that Japan would acquire its own nuclear weapons.
Who's doing the talking is very important.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 12:42 am

Ralph wrote:Anyone really interested in Japanese military capability will discover that they are very slowly edging into building a credible naval force that can be deployed throughout the Pacific Rim and they are basically confining themselves to warships of frigate or smaller class (I don't belong to both the U.S. Naval Institute and the Navy League of the U.S. for nothing). Air capability is essentially homeland defense with no real striking capability.
Duh! Ralph, drop whatever you are reading now and go at once to the Atlantic website, download Kaplan's cover article on the growing Chinese naval build up, and READ IT.
What platforms do the Japanese have for employing their heretofore unknown nuclear capability?
Well, how logical would it be for them to have the capability and not be able to deliver it? What would prevent them from getting said delivery platforms from the US? It would only take one to make them credible. Say, some kind of mutual security pact loaner on which they have been conducting joint operations with the US for years.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed May 11, 2005 4:13 am

I am very concerned about China's naval buildup AND the fact that under Dummy Donald we are not planning on creating a 21st Century fleet that can address the growing naval influence of China. Forget Harper's, subscribe to Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute where you'll really be informed about China's increasing challenge to American maritime hegemony.

As to whether Japan has nuclear capability, last night we ate at Hanada, a fun hibachi restaurant where they cook in front of you, doing cute tricks like throwing shrimp in the air. Benny, our cook last night, told me Japan has no nukes. End of discussion.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

operafan
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:18 am
Location: San francisco

Post by operafan » Wed May 11, 2005 9:22 am

There is alot in print about Japan and nukes. Boiled down, it seems like Japan has a tool kit for building nukes, but just has not, at least openly, assembled it. They have the fissionable materials from their energy plants, they have close to delivery systems in their satelight launching systems, and they have R&D going on. Many of the print articles seemed to think that Japan was/is about 6 months away from the ability to assemble and launch a nuke.

Back to the title of the thread - GM. Kirk Kerkorian has bought up 9% of GM's shares. The speculations are that he will/might do one or any of the following 1) spin off the profitable financing arm GMAC and leave the rest of the rust bucket to sink, 2) get his friends to mount hostile a hostile takeover, inflating the stock price 3) be such a bother that GM buys him out at a premium (the greenmail strategy he played at Chrystler), 4) just sit there and be an investor (rrrrrrrright). Not bad for an 87 year old guy.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/ar ... 6/16gm.htm

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed May 11, 2005 9:41 am

Is there any highly industrialized nation that doesn't have that "tool kit?"
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

BWV 1080
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:05 pm

Post by BWV 1080 » Wed May 11, 2005 9:57 am

The court decision yesterday allowing United Airlines (which is in Chapter 11) to discharge four underfunded pension plans to the government sponsored Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp, raises the likelihood that GM will file for bankruptcy, as its post-employment obligations are its main financial problem and a Chapter 11 may also allow the company to void its union contracts.

operafan
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:18 am
Location: San francisco

Post by operafan » Wed May 11, 2005 10:03 am

Ralph wrote 'Is there any highly industrialized nation that doesn't have that "tool kit?"

The satellite launching capabilities IMO are key - first a country wanting to be able to launch nukes first launches weather sats, then rudimentry communication sats, then maybe more sophisticated comm sats or spy sats.

Taiwan and S. Korea currently contract with U.S. companies for launches, as do the Phillipines. Thailand and Indonesia have used American and French facilities. Japan has used U.S., French, and their own JSAT facilities.

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed May 11, 2005 11:52 am

operafan wrote:Ralph wrote 'Is there any highly industrialized nation that doesn't have that "tool kit?"

The satellite launching capabilities IMO are key - first a country wanting to be able to launch nukes first launches weather sats, then rudimentry communication sats, then maybe more sophisticated comm sats or spy sats.

Taiwan and S. Korea currently contract with U.S. companies for launches, as do the Phillipines. Thailand and Indonesia have used American and French facilities. Japan has used U.S., French, and their own JSAT facilities.
*****

The Weather Channel is the enabler for states seeking nuclear capability? Ohmygosh!
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

operafan
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:18 am
Location: San francisco

Post by operafan » Wed May 11, 2005 12:42 pm

Ralph wrote, 'The Weather Channel is the enabler for states seeking nuclear capability? Ohmygosh!'

Naah. calm down :) The Weather channel, even if it can spot melt downs and mushroom clouds, has nothing to do with nukes; we already have them, and the rocket science to deliver them.

I was just saying that there is a progression to learning the delivery precision science. JSAT has had a few problem launches (something about fishermen offshore) so there is still work to be done by the Japaneese.

If a country has nukes, the problem is much diminished if they have no way of delivering them accurately. Suitcases apparently could work, but rockets have the advantage of larger payload. So everyone wants rockets (surprise), but it ain't all that easy to get 'em, and get 'em to go where you want 'em.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 12:43 pm

Ralph wrote:I am very concerned about China's naval buildup AND the fact that under Dummy Donald we are not planning on creating a 21st Century fleet that can address the growing naval influence of China. Forget Harper's, subscribe to Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute where you'll really be informed about China's increasing challenge to American maritime hegemony.
Ralph! Bite your tongue! I wouldn't subscribe to Harpers on a bet. I wouldn't have it as a gift. I wouldn't read it if you paid me to. I said Atlantic. And you should read the article anyway. You might learn something. 8)
Benny, our cook last night, told me Japan has no nukes. End of discussion.
Then it's official!
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 12:46 pm

operafan wrote:Suitcases apparently could work, but rockets have the advantage of larger payload.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So everyone wants rockets (surprise), but it ain't all that easy to get 'em, and get 'em to go where you want 'em.
Assuming they are doing it all on their own . . .
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ted

Post by Ted » Wed May 11, 2005 1:00 pm

If a country has nukes, the problem is much diminished if they have no way of delivering them accurately
That was the case with China, which had the recipe for developing nuclear devices long before they had the ICBM’s to deliver them.
Even today, I don’t think they have a missile capable of reaching our east coast, though I wouldn’t want to be in LA if they ever launched one our way

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 1:31 pm

Ted wrote:That was the case with China, which had the recipe for developing nuclear devices long before they had the ICBM’s to deliver them.
They had the (mis)fortune of being real or potential enemies of anyone who could have sold them the technology in those early days. They are naturally in competition with the Russians who might have done. We certainly wouldn't. Nor would the Brits. The French would sell their own grandmothers if the price was right. They are the real candidates for scorpions if ever I heard of one.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ted

Post by Ted » Wed May 11, 2005 1:41 pm

They are naturally in competition with the Russians
I think you’ll find that in the early stages of their nuke development; they had plenty of help from the Russians

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 1:56 pm

Ted wrote:
They are naturally in competition with the Russians
I think you’ll find that in the early stages of their nuke development; they had plenty of help from the Russians
Oh, yeah. No question. I was thinking of the missile part. The Russians might help them build a suitcase bomb, but would they help them build a system to deliver the suitcase to Moscow?
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed May 11, 2005 2:53 pm

operafan wrote:Ralph wrote, 'The Weather Channel is the enabler for states seeking nuclear capability? Ohmygosh!'

Naah. calm down :) The Weather channel, even if it can spot melt downs and mushroom clouds, has nothing to do with nukes; we already have them, and the rocket science to deliver them.

I was just saying that there is a progression to learning the delivery precision science. JSAT has had a few problem launches (something about fishermen offshore) so there is still work to be done by the Japaneese.

If a country has nukes, the problem is much diminished if they have no way of delivering them accurately. Suitcases apparently could work, but rockets have the advantage of larger payload. So everyone wants rockets (surprise), but it ain't all that easy to get 'em, and get 'em to go where you want 'em.
*****

Well I hope there's no "Suitcase Gap." But now I realize that I've seen a number of Japanese "tourists" at the Woodbury Common outlet mall near here loitering at the American Tourister store. I need to alert Homeland Security about this.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 2:55 pm

Ralph wrote:But now I realize that I've seen a number of Japanese "tourists" at the Woodbury Common outlet mall near here loitering at the American Tourister store. I need to alert Homeland Security about this.
Not unless the Japanese have such a poor sense of direction. I think a quick examination would yield that this is not China.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

operafan
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:18 am
Location: San francisco

Post by operafan » Wed May 11, 2005 3:05 pm

Ralph wrote:
*****

Well I hope there's no "Suitcase Gap." But now I realize that I've seen a number of Japanese "tourists" at the Woodbury Common outlet mall near here loitering at the American Tourister store. I need to alert Homeland Security about this.
The Japaneese toursists in Woodbury are buying suitcases for their American beef, which they will lovingly buy seats for on JAL, to make make sure the beef is fully pampered before it is consummed. Pay no attention to the smoke from the suitcases; it is just the dry ice used to keep the beef cool. :D

Ralph
Dittersdorf Specialist & CMG NY Host
Posts: 20996
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Paradise on Earth, New York, NY

Post by Ralph » Wed May 11, 2005 3:10 pm

operafan wrote:
Ralph wrote:
*****

Well I hope there's no "Suitcase Gap." But now I realize that I've seen a number of Japanese "tourists" at the Woodbury Common outlet mall near here loitering at the American Tourister store. I need to alert Homeland Security about this.
The Japaneese toursists in Woodbury are buying suitcases for their American beef, which they will lovingly buy seats for on JAL, to make make sure the beef is fully pampered before it is consummed. Pay no attention to the smoke from the suitcases; it is just the dry ice used to keep the beef cool. :D
*****

Thank you, I'm relieved. That's the kind of authoritative response that makes CMG so useful for me.
Image

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Wed May 11, 2005 7:31 pm

operafan wrote:The Japaneese toursists in Woodbury are buying suitcases for their American beef, which they will lovingly buy seats for on JAL, to make make sure the beef is fully pampered before it is consummed. Pay no attention to the smoke from the suitcases; it is just the dry ice used to keep the beef cool. :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests