How large a threat do you view China?

[Oozlefinch]

How many nations have died in the past 100 years because they didn't keep up with the technological advances of military violence? You're trying to apply an old idea to modern times and you're trying to apply it to every nation. The US military could basically destroy the whole world by detonating its nuclear arsenal. Is the US going to be the only country that survives? I'm not talking about surviving nuclear stupidity, I'm talking about your premise that every nation has to keep up with military technology or die. Nonsense.


Straw man melodramatic nonsense.

Actually, not nonsense.

That are many parts to having a successful military. The will to fight, a large enough force to counter all threats are big parts of them.

But also having the proper tools to counter those of your foe is a major part as well.

We call these "Force Multipliers" for a reason. With enough military and enough bodies, you can indeed fight off almost any opponent. But that is a waste, and in the end costs you even more. China tried that when they intervened in the Korean War, and we all know how that ended up. Human wave attacks against a smaller but better equipped and trained military, and half a million dead Chinese "volunteers".

And this is not new, it goes back as long as man started tying rocks to the end of sticks, because they were better at killing than sticks alone. And not every nation has to have "the best", but they at least need an ally that does, that they can call in if needed when they are being attacked with such. That is the entire basis of NATO in the first place. The US and UK provide the technology, they provide the soldiers to hold the ground until we can get it into play.

 

[Antiwar]

Actually, not nonsense.

That are many parts to having a successful military. The will to fight, a large enough force to counter all threats are big parts of them.

But also having the proper tools to counter those of your foe is a major part as well.

We call these "Force Multipliers" for a reason. With enough military and enough bodies, you can indeed fight off almost any opponent. But that is a waste, and in the end costs you even more. China tried that when they intervened in the Korean War, and we all know how that ended up. Human wave attacks against a smaller but better equipped and trained military, and half a million dead Chinese "volunteers".

And this is not new, it goes back as long as man started tying rocks to the end of sticks, because they were better at killing than sticks alone. And not every nation has to have "the best", but they at least need an ally that does, that they can call in if needed when they are being attacked with such. That is the entire basis of NATO in the first place. The US and UK provide the technology, they provide the soldiers to hold the ground until we can get it into play.

You didn't address my comment.

 

[Antiwar]

I literally already gave you multiple examples. And that’s not even counting nations which didn’t “die”, per se, but were conquered or became a puppet state as a result of their enemy’s having superior weaponry.

Not every problem can be solved by deploying nukes. Nukes ensure that the US will never be invaded and prevent nations such as China from attacking US allies, but they aren’t the solution to every issue.....and don’t eliminate the danger of falling behind technologically in other areas.

And no amount of sobbing about “reactionaries” can change that

It'd be nice if you'd actually address what I post, stop making shit up, and weren't such a drama queen. One out of three would be a massive improvement in your commentary. I think you've been honest in one or two replies out of many.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You didn't address my comment.

No, I did. Your premise is false, so I was addressing that.

You said you were not discussing "nuclear stupidity", and in that I agree. The moment one of those starts, it is no longer a "war" but a "nuclear war", and that is political.

You just do not like my response, therefore think it did not address your comment.

 

[Antiwar]

No, I did. Your premise is false, so I was addressing that.

You said you were not discussing "nuclear stupidity", and in that I agree. The moment one of those starts, it is no longer a "war" but a "nuclear war", and that is political.

You just do not like my response, therefore think it did not address your comment.

What premise of mine is false and how so?

 

[fortune]

What premise of mine is false and how so?

Good luck with getting any cogent answer

 

[Tigerace117]

It'd be nice if you'd actually address what I post, stop making shit up, and weren't such a drama queen. One out of three would be a massive improvement in your commentary. I think you've been honest in one or two replies out of many.

I already did. It’s not my fault you burst into tears because history shows what a pathetic joke your ideology is.

It’d be nice if you got a clue for once, but then again a CPC apologist like yourself is probably delighted with your own ignorance.

 

[Antiwar]

I already did. It’s not my fault you burst into tears because history shows what a pathetic joke your ideology is.

It’d be nice if you got a clue for once, but then again a CPC apologist like yourself is probably delighted with your own ignorance.

Chuckle.

 

[Tigerace117]

Chuckle.

Your inability to defend your claims and your hysterics when exposed are rather amusing.

 

[Antiwar]

Your inability to defend your claims and your hysterics when exposed are rather amusing.

I already did. It’s not my fault you burst into tears because history shows what a pathetic joke your ideology is.

It’d be nice if you got a clue for once, but then again a US militarism apologist like yourself is probably delighted with your own ignorance.

 

[Tigerace117]

I already did. It’s not my fault you burst into tears because history shows what a pathetic joke your ideology is.

It’d be nice if you got a clue for once, but then again a US militarism apologist like yourself is probably delighted with your own ignorance.

You can’t even come up with your own comebacks. Too funny

 

[AmNat]

I agree America is a decaying empire, but I don’t think China will be ascendent. They’re in a giant demographic sink right now. Their military and economic power is likely at its Zenith now, and their previous one child policy leading to a 130 to 100 boy girl ratio is not just a numbers problem on a spreadsheet, it means that women are a scarce commodity and so they end up dating for a decade just like us and having no or few children

AFAIK all first world countries are in demographic sinks. China has a lot of problems, but I don't see any others with the capacity to dominate the world within the next century.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

AFAIK all first world countries are in demographic sinks. China has a lot of problems, but I don't see any others with the capacity to dominate the world within the next century.

Depending on how you define Mexico (which I would put in first world club IF you are going to include China) that country has fertility at rate of replacement.

I actually think Mexico at least economically will be ascendent beyond China. They won’t be a military power, but they don’t need to be.

 

[Antiwar]

You can’t even come up with your own comebacks. Too funny

Your commentary on this subject is very superficial.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Depending on how you define Mexico (which I would put in first world club IF you are going to include China) that country has fertility at rate of replacement.

I actually think Mexico at least economically will be ascendent beyond China. They won’t be a military power, but they don’t need to be.

"First World", "Second World", and "Third World" have nothing to do with economics. That was created entirely about how the countries fell in with alignments during the Cold War.

"First World" was US-NATO aligned. "Second World" was USSR-Warsaw Pact aligned. "Third World" was those not aligned at all, or would switch depending on situation.

This is why Switzerland was always "Third World", and Mexico and Turkey was "First World". Israel was First World, and until the mid-1980's, most of the other nations in the region were Second World. But people are stupid, and started to just assume that "Third World" meant "poverty". And even throwing countries obviously First and Second into Third for that reason alone. Even though that was never a part of the definition.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

"First World", "Second World", and "Third World" have nothing to do with economics. That was created entirely about how the countries fell in with alignments during the Cold War.

"First World" was US-NATO aligned. "Second World" was USSR-Warsaw Pact aligned. "Third World" was those not aligned at all, or would switch depending on situation.

This is why Switzerland was always "Third World", and Mexico and Turkey was "First World". Israel was First World, and until the mid-1980's, most of the other nations in the region were Second World. But people are stupid, and started to just assume that "Third World" meant "poverty". And even throwing countries obviously First and Second into Third for that reason alone. Even though that was never a part of the definition.

Yes I know the origin of the term, however the Cold War ended 30 years ago and this is not the accepted definition now

 

[Tigerace117]

Your commentary on this subject is very superficial.

There’s nothing “superficial” about pointing out the fact that China is committing a genocide.

 

[AmNat]

Depending on how you define Mexico (which I would put in first world club IF you are going to include China) that country has fertility at rate of replacement.

I actually think Mexico at least economically will be ascendent beyond China. They won’t be a military power, but they don’t need to be.

Economic power goes hand in hand with military power. Countries like Mexico are beneficiaries of Washington's hegemony, and will not fare as well when they have to defend their own interests.