It wouldn't be pre-emptive it would be in response to a PLAN and PLAAF attack on Taiwan where the US has security obligations.
Biden v. Trump Election Mega Thread
- Thread starter Shadyside
- Start date
- Status
Clinton, Obama, and Biden gave them the freest trade compared with the republicans. And I am not a fan of Nixon, GWB, or HW either. It was our free trade that let them grow their economy.
Yes
Because we're (nationally) capitalists
And our ultra-capitalist right wing adores "capitalist reforms lifting people out of extreme poverty", most of which happened in China.
Has China tried to annex your backyard as part of their South China Sea gambit? Because your posts as of late have gone just a bit off the rails. For someone with degrees in International relations, you should realize that nukes aren't just something you can 'pop off' a few times in another country that has ballistic missiles with nukes of their own. That oft offends.
And that backfired, and lead to the greatest threat to democracy, human rights, and ironically capitalism due to the prevalence of monopolies in China, and the US since the USSR.
What's your point?
Also not I am not hyper-capitalist.
Well, I recommended a credible ABM system or anti-ballistic missile systems like GMD, SM-3/Aegis, THAAD, and Patriot before using a nuke so we don't get nuked back if you read my previous posts you would get that.
Edit: in response to your morality answer. A realist would answer that there is no morality and that China is a rising power, and we ought balance against it with a temporary coalition.
A Neoliberal/Liberal answer would be that we gave china every chance not to be a dick, and they failed every step of the way all the way back to Tiananmen square to the Taiwan crisis to the various Hong Kong protests to now. Now is the time for the international community to use a preponderance of force against them, and their few allies.
A constructivist would argue that China's education system and aggregate ideas in their head teaches them to be virulent nationalists who hate everyone who is not them and to never back down. We ought to use the UN or international institutions, but those have been co-opted by them, and now we have no choice but to counter.
Last edited:
- Nov 27, 2009
- 5,792
- 712
- 118
- Country
- The Dreamlands
- Gender
- Lose 1d20 sanity points.
While that is true, and it wouldn't be anarchism anymore if it was run in a non-communal fashion it is my understanding that it is run in this manner, at least according to they claim to be their ideals, however I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure and finding a credible source that cites any information of how this is handled is proving to be more time-consuming than I thought it would take, so I'll get back to you a bit later since my schedule for tomorrow is a bit swamped, I've asked my contact on EZLN if they could explain it to me or point me in a direction to find it faster, but so far I have yet to receive a response, not that this is important so I don't mind if he takes his time, but it's enlightening to see how little I truly know about them so I do want to get more involved.
Well firstly the nuclear element would be pre-emptive presuming your acronyms don’t involve nukes. Secondly, it’s not like the US navy isn’t capable of destroying the Chinese navy without nukes. Finally, I had no clue you meant to attack in response to an attack on Taiwan (which is, kinda humorously given the new state department lingo, a literal Han colonial state) and that’s a good deal different from blowing up their navy in their harbor.
If they lob missiles at Taiwan or our allies then retreat to their ports, that' an act of war.
Second yes we can right now( while losing over 1/3 of our navy, and 1000 combat planes) win. But what about 2050 where they have implied that's when they will attack.
What if a progressive or a dove becomes president and stops to slash the navy to 100 ships, and we have to fight a 600 ship navy with more attack submarines than us.
The 100-Ship Navy - War on the Rocks
Naval officers pray at the altar of “more ships.” We demand more of them, fantasize about new ways to use them, and assume that the fleet will only grow.
warontherocks.com
Ok, have fun coming up with doomsday scenarios for thirty years from now I guess.If they lob missiles at Taiwan or our allies then retreat to their ports, that' an act of war.
Second yes we can right now( while losing over 1/3 of our navy, and 1000 combat planes) win. But what about 2050 where they have implied that's when they will attack.
What if a progressive or a dove becomes president and stops to slash the navy to 100 ships, and we have to fight a 600 ship navy with more attack submarines than us.
The 100-Ship Navy - War on the Rocks
Naval officers pray at the altar of “more ships.” We demand more of them, fantasize about new ways to use them, and assume that the fleet will only grow.warontherocks.com
Sadly that's not my job, it's the DOD's job, and if Biden has his way, no one's job.
Okay, you got me there, a bunch of conservative think-tanks the democrats won't listen to while they sell the country's jewels to China. Happy?
The DOD will likely go back to Russia-scare-mongering, and put back troops in Germany, and maybe even go back to the middle east, and Syria. If Biden wins.
So...you're nuts?
I'm pretty sure some of the military budget could be redirected into other areas.
I would cut the army somewhat, but keep funding the navy, and air force during the pandemic. Afterward, I would only cut them after we defeat China, and get Putin to back down.
"Defeat China?" What does that even mean, specifically?
But if we're talking about the US military, it alone uses as much energy as all of Nigeria, and outspends China by 4:1, and outspends the top nine military spenders combined. It's insane, and the level of spending isn't going down.
I've heard this multiple times, so it may be a meme argument, but all the US has to do is blockade China, causing mass starvation and ending whatever pipe dream they had.
In fact I remember an amusing spacebattles post where Japan could defeat China alone by sinking every vessel moving to or from the direction of China, which would scare off any attempt at trade, and then Japan would mass produce anti-ship missiles which would annihilate any fleet that tried to approach it.
Difference btw. GDP nominal, and GDP PPP. GDP PPP or purchasing power parity is different in every country(more bang for the buck in China, and Russia), and GDP nominal is pegged to the US dollar. The US used to spend as much as Russia, and China in GDP PPP. Now it's likely the uS is outspent by both on GDP PPP due to Russia, and China having lower salaries for their soldiers, and their equipment costing less.
Granted I got my sources from Wikipedia, but if anyone wants to loan me their Jane's Defense Books that each cost 1000 dollars for the most up to date version, call me.
"In 2019, Peter Robertson, a professor from the University of Western Australia, argued that using conventional currency conversion as opposed to more accurate "purchasing power parity" (PPP) exchange rates dramatically understated China's military capabilities and that China's real military spending was equivalent to US spending of $455 billion, calculated from a PPP perspective. "
China’s military might is much closer to the US than you probably think
China’s military budget is usually thought to be about 40% of that of the US. In reality it’s about 75%.
theconversation.com
- Status