A big difference between the China threat and the Russia threat

[Craig234]

Putin has made himself the issue. It's a one-man show. He has total corruption in the nation benefiting him, he has a military he's using to invade, he has nuclear weapons he uses for his own protection, he has the agenda. The Russian people don't support a lot of what he does and many no doubt would welcome change. If Putin were replaced, we could get a very different government. His personal power and agenda are the issue.

China is very, very different. If their leader were replaced, there would like be small shifts, but it wouldn't change much; the party would continue without missing a beat. Their country is dominated by a large party that is all-powerful, maintaining its power with a massive security state and propaganda system. There is no clear way to bring about much change with the ruling party short of entirely defeating the nuclear-armed nation of about 1.5 billion people.

There might be some parallel with the two powers in WWII's axis, where Hitler was one person the Nazi agenda was based on, and his removal might have greatly changed things, while Japan had a rise of a militarist movement that wasn't about any one person, and the loss of one leader wouldn't likely change much in the situation.

I'd suggest this helps make China the much greater challenge in the long term, among other factors such as its far greater economy, with a GDP 10 times that of Russia.

 

[Exquisitor]

Total sanctions, nothing in, nothing out, treat them like North Korea.

Then you'd have the Antichrist and a Beast and if we treated China that way too, we'd have a False Prophet.

Come on, let's get going, they aren't getting any younger.

 

[Jkca1]

China is the number one threat. I spoke to my kids about these numbers yesterday;

The US has 350 million+ people mostly clustered around major cities;

• The population density in the United States is 36 per Km2 (94 people per mi2).
• The total land area is 9,147,420 Km2 (3,531,837 sq. miles)
• 82.8 % of the population is urban (273,975,139 people in 2020)

China has One billion + people about half clustered around major cities:

• The population density in China is 153 per Km2 (397 people per mi2).
• The total land area is 9,388,211 Km2 (3,624,807 sq. miles)
• 60.8 % of the population is urban (875,075,919 people in 2020)

For the sake of argument let's say that urban centers in both countries are completely destroyed. China will still have about 400 million people left compared to about 70 million Americans. Let's not have a discussion about the devestating effects on the world, that's a given. On paper, which side do you think "wins" the conflict? And yes, "wins" is quite meaningless in the scheme of things.

 

[code1211]

Putin has made himself the issue. It's a one-man show. He has total corruption in the nation benefiting him, he has a military he's using to invade, he has nuclear weapons he uses for his own protection, he has the agenda. The Russian people don't support a lot of what he does and many no doubt would welcome change. If Putin were replaced, we could get a very different government. His personal power and agenda are the issue.

China is very, very different. If their leader were replaced, there would like be small shifts, but it wouldn't change much; the party would continue without missing a beat. Their country is dominated by a large party that is all-powerful, maintaining its power with a massive security state and propaganda system. There is no clear way to bring about much change with the ruling party short of entirely defeating the nuclear-armed nation of about 1.5 billion people.

There might be some parallel with the two powers in WWII's axis, where Hitler was one person the Nazi agenda was based on, and his removal might have greatly changed things, while Japan had a rise of a militarist movement that wasn't about any one person, and the loss of one leader wouldn't likely change much in the situation.

I'd suggest this helps make China the much greater challenge in the long term, among other factors such as its far greater economy, with a GDP 10 times that of Russia.

I would quibble with Imperial Japan lacking a single head of government since they did have an Emperor, but otherwise seems about right.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

China is the number one threat. I spoke to my kids about these numbers yesterday;

The US has 350 million+ people mostly clustered around major cities;

• The population density in the United States is 36 per Km2 (94 people per mi2).
• The total land area is 9,147,420 Km2 (3,531,837 sq. miles)
• 82.8 % of the population is urban (273,975,139 people in 2020)

China has One billion + people about half clustered around major cities:

• The population density in China is 153 per Km2 (397 people per mi2).
• The total land area is 9,388,211 Km2 (3,624,807 sq. miles)
• 60.8 % of the population is urban (875,075,919 people in 2020)

For the sake of argument let's say that urban centers in both countries are completely destroyed. China will still have about 400 million people left compared to about 70 million Americans. Let's not have a discussion about the devestating effects on the world, that's a given. On paper, which side do you think "wins" the conflict? And yes, "wins" is quite meaningless in the scheme of things.

China has an estimated 400 nuclear warheads, the US over 4000.

The US could turn all of agricultural land in China into a radioactive waste land. The 400 million remaining would starve to death in a year or too

 

[Jkca1]

China has an estimated 400 nuclear warheads, the US over 4000.

The US could turn all of agricultural land in China into a radioactive waste land. The 400 million remaining would starve to death in a year or too

So perhaps now is the time to let the missiles fly?

"China’s nuclear weapons stockpile is expected to double (if not triple or quadruple) over the next decade.” This essentially doubles the 2020 Pentagon report’s estimate, increasing the number to about 1,000 warheads by 2030. This is quite credible".

 

[code1211]

China has an estimated 400 nuclear warheads, the US over 4000.

The US could turn all of agricultural land in China into a radioactive waste land. The 400 million remaining would starve to death in a year or too

Winning a nuclear war seems like an iffy proposition.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Putin has made himself the issue. It's a one-man show. He has total corruption in the nation benefiting him, he has a military he's using to invade, he has nuclear weapons he uses for his own protection, he has the agenda. The Russian people don't support a lot of what he does and many no doubt would welcome change. If Putin were replaced, we could get a very different government. His personal power and agenda are the issue.

China is very, very different. If their leader were replaced, there would like be small shifts, but it wouldn't change much; the party would continue without missing a beat. Their country is dominated by a large party that is all-powerful, maintaining its power with a massive security state and propaganda system. There is no clear way to bring about much change with the ruling party short of entirely defeating the nuclear-armed nation of about 1.5 billion people.

There might be some parallel with the two powers in WWII's axis, where Hitler was one person the Nazi agenda was based on, and his removal might have greatly changed things, while Japan had a rise of a militarist movement that wasn't about any one person, and the loss of one leader wouldn't likely change much in the situation.

I'd suggest this helps make China the much greater challenge in the long term, among other factors such as its far greater economy, with a GDP 10 times that of Russia.

You ignored the biggest difference of all, in terms of threats to the U.S. -- the Russians interfering in our elections. So far, there is no indication of the Chinese doing that.

It's very possible that Russia was the difference for Trump in the 2016 election via their online propaganda and this country has gone to hell ever since.

 

[code1211]

You ignored the biggest difference of all, in terms of threats to the U.S. -- the Russians interfering in our elections. So far, there is no indication of the Chinese doing that.

It's very possible that Russia was the difference for Trump in the 2016 election via their online propaganda and this country has gone to hell ever since.

There is not a single idea or thought in your post that is not ridiculous in every way, on every level and any application.

It's really quite amazing.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

There is not a single idea or thought in your post that is not ridiculous in every way, on every level and any application.

It's really quite amazing.

So what part of my statement isn't true? The Mueller Report is much more believable than your stupid rants.

It's amazing that you are still a Republican after 4 years of Trump and after Jan 6.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how stupid are you?

 

[code1211]

So what part of my statement isn't true? The Mueller Report is much more believable than your stupid rants.

It's amazing that you are still a Republican after 4 years of Trump and after Jan 6.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how stupid are you?

More of the same, I see.