Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

China,
Not worried about it. The fleet that they would need to support a land invasion would be impossible to miss, as in you wouldnt be able to hide it.

Once said fleet is spotted the US first response would be to launch Nuclear tipped Cruise Missles at said armada while its still in international waters.

The only real way to counter this would be for China to launch a First Strike against our silos/West Coast Bases. And thanks to M.A.D after that dust cloud settles nobody will be physically able to invade anybody anytime soon.

So im not worried about it really.

I'm not worried about China either. They own too much of America's economy for a military action to make any sense.

But power perceived is power achieved. I'd like for a western country to be the big dog.

Orlanth wrote:Sorry you lack understanding of the easter mindset. Your idea of what is non-sensical might have some validity with western nations, and then only some. in the Far East the concept of conceal your strength goes far into the culture. Sun-Tzu and all that. You get secrecy everywhere, but this mindset goes beyond security clearances, it is about appearing less powerful than you are, not just keeping new gadgets out of the public eye.

That's a weird stereotype, and doesn't have much to do with anything going on in international politics.

And yeah, it is all about China. You have to remember actual war is pretty much a no-go for everyone. The economies of the major players are all too inter-connected. War is only going to come at the end of a lot of really terrible diplomatic blunders.

So it is all about strength, and everyone involved recognising that strength. The idea that China would commit the money to develop a modern military and then hide that is not sensible.

Regional dominance? You serious, China is a global player, but you might not see that the move is made.

Of course China is a global player on the economic and political stage. But their worldwide military presence is effectively zero, outside of their region (this is the case for just about every military, actually). Immediate priority is to achieve total regional dominance.

Platuan4th wrote:Yeah, China(especially) and Russia are way off on that chart.

But what do I know, my spouse is only IN the military and I get to hear things that I'm not allowed to talk to anyone about.

If you honestly think we're not worried about China's military, you couldn't be MORE wrong.

Your spouse can be a four star general for all it matters, the Russian economy is smaller than Spain. The idea that there is this secret mega-Russian army belongs in comic books.

The idea that China is secretly building some mega army and not telling anyone is the starting chapter of one of the more mediocre Tom Clancy novels.

dienekes96 wrote:The annual US defense budget is about $550M...not cheap, but hardly what the government wastes on dozens of other projects.

Billions, not millions. About $550 billion a year.

That's the other place this is interesting, comparing it to the sticker shock on things like the stimulus package.

generalgrog: You would be surprised to know that most countries are afraid because of our offense. you can't imagine how many covert operation US SPEC OP. forces do in a year to keep the world safe. And our President playing dumb by saying " I have know recollection of that". My friend real power is all about intell. It's all about knowing when,why,where and how to strike. I just pray that when it does all go down these political bastards get it right.

Canada's on that chart? I never would have figured. I guess when we're next to the US they make reasonable military spending look like peanuts. (this is not an attack on US military spending)

dienekes96 wrote:I'm not worried about China either. They own too much of America's economy for a military action to make any sense.

But power perceived is power achieved. I'd like for a western country to be the big dog.

Though i think military spending is out of control ^that is not really true. America the country v China the country isn't really the question, it's more the question of interests in America and interests in China willing to sacrifice their own countries interests to get them met. War costs the tax payers money, and people their lives. But it makes some (super rich) people money. These (super rich) people are closer to their equivalent in other countries than people with different lives in their own country.
In case you don't know, very rich people go to boarding schools as kids, where they hang around with other very rich people from all over the world. While their countrymen bully them for being different.

sebster wrote:
So it is all about strength, and everyone involved recognising that strength. The idea that China would commit the money to develop a modern military and then hide that is not sensible.

To you maybe, not to them. Who is in control of China, you are them? If you are your comment holds, otherwise....

sebster wrote:
Of course China is a global player on the economic and political stage. But their worldwide military presence is effectively zero, outside of their region (this is the case for just about every military, actually). Immediate priority is to achieve total regional dominance.

You have to read between the lines. Back in 2004 Bush made a very dangerous move saying the US reserves the right to preemptive strike any nation developing WMD. Later the same week Iran declares its intention to make a nuclear program. Yes the declarations happened in that order. Iran also achieved its goals quickly. Bush did nothing. Trying putting the pieces together in a logical way without China in the equation,

This was a direct attempt of hegemony by the US government and it was slapped down on the quiet. This is how China works.

Whoops, B billion is correct. So for less money than the stimulus package(s), you get dominant national security, advances in technology, and probably over a million jobs, healthcare for every member of the military and their family, and a good chunk of education and training. It's not $550B worth of bullets.

As for Russia, their conventional military is in tatters. Their nuclear arsenal is not. But, you say, they are operating under some good treaties with goodwill. Yes, they are. Those treaties specifically govern strategic nukes (strategic vs. tactical definition deals with the method of delivery). It does not govern tactical nukes at all...the US has almost zero tactical nukes. Our Russian friends have in the high 4 digits. That doesn't get much attention in the media, because most people don't understand the nuance. I'm not saying they are going to use any, but you don't want to go to war with them.

namegoeshere, interests are exactly what I am talking about when I discuss the countries.

dienekes96 wrote:Whoops, B billion is correct. So for less money than the stimulus package(s), you get dominant national security, advances in technology, and probably over a million jobs, healthcare for every member of the military and their family, and a good chunk of education and training. It's not $550B worth of bullets.

Sure. Comparing the two figures can't be used to say one or the other is too big, to make that judgment you have to start considering what you get out of each package. It's just an indicator of scale of each.

"The stimulus package is how many billions? That's a lot of billions!"
"Well, it's only a bit more than the military budget each year."

Or;

"The military budget is how many billions? That's a lot of billions!"
"Well, the stimulus package is a once off item put together in a few months, and is actually more. That's just the scale government works on."

As for Russia, their conventional military is in tatters. Their nuclear arsenal is not. But, you say, they are operating under some good treaties with goodwill. Yes, they are. Those treaties specifically govern strategic nukes (strategic vs. tactical definition deals with the method of delivery). It does not govern tactical nukes at all...the US has almost zero tactical nukes. Our Russian friends have in the high 4 digits. That doesn't get much attention in the media, because most people don't understand the nuance. I'm not saying they are going to use any, but you don't want to go to war with them.

Oh, no-one wants to start a war with Russia, or anyone with nukes of any type. One of the biggest problems with the Bush doctrine was that it encouraged nations to develop nuclear weapons. Previously you could be confident that the US wouldn't invade you because that was how sovereignty worked, but now that was no guarantee, so the only way to guarantee your borders was nuclear weapons.

Orlanth wrote:

sebster wrote:
So it is all about strength, and everyone involved recognising that strength. The idea that China would commit the money to develop a modern military and then hide that is not sensible.

To you maybe, not to them. Who is in control of China, you are them? If you are your comment holds, otherwise....

That's not a sensible argument, and you know it. I can also point out that you're not in charge of China, and therefore your argument about their policies also aren't true.

At which point we're left with our observations of China, it's leaders and the basics of international politics. Absolutely none of which are pointing in the slightest towards China building a secret army.

You have to read between the lines. Back in 2004 Bush made a very dangerous move saying the US reserves the right to preemptive strike any nation developing WMD. Later the same week Iran declares its intention to make a nuclear program. Yes the declarations happened in that order. Iran also achieved its goals quickly. Bush did nothing. Trying putting the pieces together in a logical way without China in the equation,

This was a direct attempt of hegemony by the US government and it was slapped down on the quiet. This is how China works.

I think you left something out after 'equation,'. Because as it is I can't understand what you're trying to say.

sebster wrote:

That's not a sensible argument, and you know it. I can also point out that you're not in charge of China, and therefore your argument about their policies also aren't true.

A very sensible argeument actually. Sorry you DONT UNDERSTAND. What I think is not relevant I am not saying what makes sense by my point of view, but from the eastern mindset. This is the principle mistake you are making, basing your logic on your own thinking and not the understanding of the thinking of others. You dont understand the eastern way of thinking, when you say that the policy doesnt make sense you say so from a western midset. Once you adopt an eastern mindset they work out fine. Political truth isnt absolute, but peiople groups folloow their own mores as though they were absolute truth.

sebster wrote:
I think you left something out after 'equation,'. Because as it is I can't understand what you're trying to say.

It's like a maths sum x + y = ? If you know x and y you can tell what the answer is. In politics the skill to do this is called analysis, and its morte than guesswork, political and economic forces flow and the flow is predictable because the nature of man on a large scale is predictable.

Raw theory aside to explain the topical example. Bush was pushing for US hegemony by attempting to give future US administrations carte blanche to punish proliferation without warning. Some governments wanted to challenge this, in particular Russia and China. So one or the other obviously (analytically speaking) used Irans desire for nuclear armament program and hostility to the USA as a beatstick to cause Bush's policy to expire. Russia has no friendship with Iran, but China has.
Furthermore despite this the US has gone relatively easy on Tehran, you should be able to smell the threat of the Chinese UN veto here. Release pressure has to come from somewhere, follow the strings and they lead with a reaonable degree of certainty to China.

Orlanth wrote:A very sensible argeument actually. Sorry you DONT UNDERSTAND.

Uh, no, it wasn’t. You said that any observation is irrelevant, because I’m not the Chinese leadership therefore I can’t comment on how they operate. Which also holds for yourself.

What’s with the caps by the way? Are you shouting?

What I think is not relevant I am not saying what makes sense by my point of view, but from the eastern mindset. This is the principle mistake you are making, basing your logic on your own thinking and not the understanding of the thinking of others. You dont understand the eastern way of thinking, when you say that the policy doesnt make sense you say so from a western midset. Once you adopt an eastern mindset they work out fine. Political truth isnt absolute, but peiople groups folloow their own mores as though they were absolute truth.

‘The Eastern way of thinking’. Dude, that’s straight up racialist poppycock. Yes, there are cultural differences, but to try and pretend that they somehow change the game so that up is down and nations hide their military strength to increase prestige is goofy. If you then try and extend that so that China has a secret army that rivals the US then you’re on your way to crazy town.

It's like a maths sum x + y = ? If you know x and y you can tell what the answer is. In politics the skill to do this is called analysis, and its morte than guesswork, political and economic forces flow and the flow is predictable because the nature of man on a large scale is predictable.

Raw theory aside to explain the topical example. Bush was pushing for US hegemony by attempting to give future US administrations carte blanche to punish proliferation without warning. Some governments wanted to challenge this, in particular Russia and China. So one or the other obviously (analytically speaking) used Irans desire for nuclear armament program and hostility to the USA as a beatstick to cause Bush's policy to expire. Russia has no friendship with Iran, but China has.

That’s what you were getting at? Your earlier answer left out a sentence so it wasn’t clear, but I guessed that might have been what you were saying. I thought probably not though, because it is such a ridiculously long bow.

Furthermore despite this the US has gone relatively easy on Tehran, you should be able to smell the threat of the Chinese UN veto here. Release pressure has to come from somewhere, follow the strings and they lead with a reaonable degree of certainty to China.

Not really, and fear of veto is non-sensical. It’s a diplomatic coup to force another nation to use veto. All those censure motions against Israel, do you think anyone believes they’re going to be passed, or do you think a large part of the motivation is to force the US into using it’s veto, therefore isolating itself and Israel from the greater international community. If anything you were saying had any traction, the US would love to bring a motion against Iran’s nuclear policy and force a Chinese veto.

So for less money than the stimulus package(s), you get dominant national security, advances in technology, and probably over a million jobs, healthcare for every member of the military and their family, and a good chunk of education and training. It's not $550B worth of bullets.

It's also the allotted budget for day to day operations and not special exceptions like wartime. The actual military expenditure is currently much beyond that 550$ billion figure, that's just their standard operational budget, excesses to that need to be signed by congress (and happen with some regularity, or at least have been happening for the past few years).

As for military healthcare, yeah its nice, but it would still be better economically to have less injured, mentally stressed, and sick military personnel on the payroll. Ensuring a high risk super high stress job that is created out of nothing and produces nothing (military budgets are bloat by definition because military power has few benefits that can transition into economic strength) doesn't actually create economic security or strength. Creating jobs is all well and good, but that money could easily go towards creating jobs in education, law enforcement, manufacturing, and many other places that need it desperately.

As for military research, thats primarily done at the university level before its bought out by the major military contractors (take lockheed martins new "power suit" for example). Military spending does help advance technology, but not as much as people may think, and it's share of advancement has been tapering off for years as we've turned to a technology and service based economy. Take japan for instance, one of the technological development centers of the world and almost no military industrial complex to speak of. You can take the same money, and the same need for advancement and place it in the hands of a civilian research center and come up with a hell of a lot more useful things than a humvee mounted laser canon (which we have now).

Our Russian friends have in the high 4 digits. That doesn't get much attention in the media, because most people don't understand the nuance. I'm not saying they are going to use any, but you don't want to go to war with them.

The United States was the first country in the world to develop nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have used them as actual weapons, during the two bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. Before and during the Cold War it conducted over a thousand nuclear tests and developed many long-range weapon delivery systems.[2] It maintains an arsenal of about 5,500 warheads to this day[1], as well as facilities for their construction and design, though many of the Cold War facilities have since been deactivated and are sites for environmental remediation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States

sebster wrote:

Having said that I'm all for pulling troops out of all international locations except for 2-3 strategic bases. We've been involved in far too many wars to protect the world.

As I pointed out in the American stereotype thread, your idea that the US acts purely to help others is very wrong. The US acts to protect its economic and political interests like any other powerful country would. The examples I listed in the other thread;

"You missed a few in there. There was the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953. The Bay of Pigs and the on-going quarantine of Cuba. The CIA engineered overthrow of the Syrian government in 1949. The support of the 70s coup that saw Pinochet come to power in Chile. The support of the coup in Guatemala in the 60s that led to 200,000 dead. Advisors and aircraft were provided in the ten year long war in El Salvador. In 2002 the CIA backed a coup against Chavez."

I think he's counting the world wars, bosnia, somalia, both Iraq wars(oil is not important here, our gas has gone UP in price),vietnam, and korea. Those last two were against communism.

And we have the right to do whatever we want to mexico, the carribean, and south america. We claimed authority over that entire hemisphere.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:A very sensible argeument actually. Sorry you DONT UNDERSTAND.

Uh, no, it wasn’t. You said that any observation is irrelevant, because I’m not the Chinese leadership therefore I can’t comment on how they operate. Which also holds for yourself.

What’s with the caps by the way? Are you shouting?

Sorry, you are not listening. I am not giving MY OPINIONS caps for iteration, I am reciting the Chinese mindset. What I think about how power politics should be presented is not relevant.

sebster wrote:
‘The Eastern way of thinking’. Dude, that’s straight up racialist poppycock.

So you follow the 'we are all exactly the same' dogma. You beleive that. I never stated we are better or they are worse, just we think different, which also happens to be true.

A word of advice, dont cry racism just because you dont understand another mans philosophy, you are assuming hatred on my part and you have no right or evidence to back up that claim.

sebster wrote:
Yes, there are cultural differences, but to try and pretend that they somehow change the game so that up is down and nations hide their military strength to increase prestige is goofy.

Again you misread what I said, it has nothing to do with increasing prestige, it is about channeling ones opponents thoughts.

sebster wrote:
If you then try and extend that so that China has a secret army that rivals the US then you’re on your way to crazy town.

This is not what I said at all, but it is interesting that you drew that conclusion, and funnily enough proves one of my points. To you concealment of strength automatically means "ohnoz they are stronger than us!!!" this in itself a strong indication thast strength concealment is necessary for the given aim of avoiding panic amongst the poluace of other nations. The last thing China wants as a 'Yellow peril' scare, to avoid that they need to be friendly as far as they can and not appear threatening either by appearing weak or being weak. China doesnt want to be weak, so the appearance is vital.

Yes this is a completely different mindset to that of the US and European powers who showed strength whwen they have/had it.

sebster wrote:
That’s what you were getting at? Your earlier answer left out a sentence so it wasn’t clear, but I guessed that might have been what you were saying. I thought probably not though, because it is such a ridiculously long bow.

I wanted to help you think it through for yourself rather than spoon feed you the answer, you learn better that way.

Not really, and fear of veto is non-sensical. It’s a diplomatic coup to force another nation to use veto. All those censure motions against Israel, do you think anyone believes they’re going to be passed, or do you think a large part of the motivation is to force the US into using it’s veto, therefore isolating itself and Israel from the greater international community.

The US gains internally when it uses the veto on israels behalf as the party in power benefits from the Israel lobby, or more to the point doesnt have it against them.
Also the US veto on resolutions against Israel prove little as it is overused and is no suprise to anyone.

If anything you were saying had any traction, the US would love to bring a motion against Iran’s nuclear policy and force a Chinese veto.

I can see the benefit on this but the US wants desperately to keep a unified face on nuclear proliferation. It is plain as day that the US all but gave Israel nuclear armaments, the last think they want is a situation where two mutually antagonital parties each have the backing of a major power who is aiding proliferation. That would be the true powderkeg.

The US is painted into a corner here. Israel has been demanding assurances that if Iasrael is attacked with a nuclear weapon the US would annihilate the nation concerned. There was even a thread on this a few months back. This would be an assinine move partly because of the obvious consequences of global war, but also the possibility that an attack could be terrorist driven and not sourced from a state per se, finally Israel itself is a likely cause of nuclear war in the Middle East and the last thing we want there is the US drawn into the party on a promise.

China has taken a stand at it appears they are now saying we need nuclear balance in the middle east. Israel is unstable enough that a localised MAD in the middle east may be the best medium term solution for the region. This comes down to Bush's dangerous and evidently one sided non-proliferation commitments in 2004.

China also needs an oil ally, and for their point they have chosen wisely. Iran is powerful, internally stable, not hostile to China, has plenty of black gold and is currently without a partner.

The US could score points by forcing a Chinese veto, but the cost would be too high. Bush tried a puish for hegemony in the middle east relatively quietly. the comments that theb US reserves the right to attack nartions contructing WMD wouthout warning didnt get a lot of press space, it was there but downplayed small column stuff. This is how you want to play in politics if you want to say sometyhing important on open record but dont want to emphasise it to the populace, only to the power players. China responded quietly. Neither side wants to make a big issue on this because of the dire consequences, especially if Israel starts screaming for nuclear assurances. Thus there has been a big backdown and no conflict in the UN. If the US made a proposal against Iran, China might not have to act, the situation is dangerous Russia might join in or mutually abstain with France. Uk will back the US because the poodles are still in office but the other 10 members of the security council will likely get cold feet, no majority. This could so easily backfire, the best the US gets is a China veto, but they might get a Russian veto on Chinas behalf or a defeated resolution with mass abstaintions.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Doesn't anybody know that the cold war is over?

Yeah, that's why we have the new rather nebulous 'Islamofascist' boogeyman to replace the 'commie pinko' boogeyman.

I was gonna laugh until it hit me, 'You know... he's right.'

Yeah, but the "commie pinko" boogeyman never blew up two large skyscrapers and the pentagon.

I have edited a comment out of an earlier posting as it was taken in offence by two users.

I think the comment may have been meant as a joke however as it was liable to be taken badly I decided to remove it.

In the OT forum, Moderators give more latitude for broad comment however we do have to keep an eye on things. It's not meant as a shouting forum, it is a forum for non-wargaming discussions.

Therefore everyone should please take care when posting.

Orlanth wrote:Sorry, you are not listening. I am not giving MY OPINIONS caps for iteration, I am reciting the Chinese mindset. What I think about how power politics should be presented is not relevant.

Yes, and given that you are not the Chinese leadership, by your logic you're just as incapable of understanding their mindset as I am. Or possibly outside parties can understand... at which point we're back at square one.

So you follow the 'we are all exactly the same' dogma. You beleive that. I never stated we are better or they are worse, just we think different, which also happens to be true.

No, not that we're all the same. Never said that, in fact I went on to state the exact opposite a couple of sentence after the part you quoted ("Yes, there are cultural differences"). So try reading before launching into strawman efforts.

The point is that the Chinese aren't so different that they ignore basic realties of international politics. One of the big realties is that no-one wants to go to war, armies are built at great cost because they are first and foremost a source of soft power. Ignoring that to build a secret army? Just no.

Meanwhile China makes a very big deal of the rest of its growth in power, probably fibbing more than a little on economic growth data, and proudly announcing the growth in military expenditure (that isn't part of the secret army). It's a nonsensical idea.

A word of advice, dont cry racism just because you dont understand another mans philosophy, you are assuming hatred on my part and you have no right or evidence to back up that claim.

No, not racism. Racialism. There are distinct and very important differences. A word of advice, if you're going to go around talking about the cultures of the world you need to learn the difference between the two.

Again you misread what I said, it has nothing to do with increasing prestige, it is about channeling ones opponents thoughts.

To what end? All you've claimed is that the Chinese are building a secret army, and when I asked why they'd keep such an increase in strength secret, you said it was because they were all mysterious and Chinese. Exactly what are the Chinese hoping to achieve by building this army in secret?

This is not what I said at all, but it is interesting that you drew that conclusion, and funnily enough proves one of my points. To you concealment of strength automatically means "ohnoz they are stronger than us!!!" this in itself a strong indication thast strength concealment is necessary for the given aim of avoiding panic amongst the poluace of other nations.

No, once again you're speculating. I posted an Economist chart on military spending, from which the most obvious conclusion and the one I pointed out in the OP is that the US spends a lot more than anyone else. More than the next 14 countries combined. You come in to thread and claim the Chinese figures are BS. You later claim that an uncited CIA report says China will be very big in this century. So yeah, I drew the obvious implication from your comments, that you felt China was a direct military rival to the US right now.

The idea that if people were to hear something was done in secret then it must equal the US is goofy. People assumed Saddam was doing all kinds of stuff in secret, they never for one second thought his power equalled the US. People can seperate 'in secret' from 'equal'. You just made that up for the sake of this argument, and it's a very weak claim.

The last thing China wants as a 'Yellow peril' scare, to avoid that they need to be friendly as far as they can and not appear threatening either by appearing weak or being weak. China doesnt want to be weak, so the appearance is vital.

Yes this is a completely different mindset to that of the US and European powers who showed strength whwen they have/had it.

Except that's really nothing but empty speculation, is it? And one that has nothing to do with the modern face of Chinese politics.

I wanted to help you think it through for yourself rather than spoon feed you the answer, you learn better that way.

No, don't try that. You posted a semi-coherent paragraph with the last sentence unfinished. The claim, as it appeared, was ridiculous, so I asked you to clarify rather than just assume. You then clarified that yes, indeed, you were saying something silly. And now you're trying to play smug. Don't even.

The US gains internally when it uses the veto on israels behalf as the party in power benefits from the Israel lobby, or more to the point doesnt have it against them.
Also the US veto on resolutions against Israel prove little as it is overused and is no suprise to anyone.

Well, duh. Of course that's why the US uses the veto, that's a given and has nothing to do with why nations put UN resolutions forward that force the US to veto. And yes, that the US uses the veto is of no surprise to anyone involved. None of which remotely addresses the point I put to you, so I'll repeat it for you.

You claimed that the US went easy on Iran out of fear of Chinese veto. I pointed out that the idea of being afraid of another nation's veto is nonsense, because forcing a SC member to use veto is a diplomatic win. If China really was in league with Iran the best thing the US could do would be to draw that relationship out into the open, and put China on the backfoot by forcing its veto.

I can see the benefit on this but the US wants desperately to keep a unified face on nuclear proliferation. It is plain as day that the US all but gave Israel nuclear armaments, the last think they want is a situation where two mutually antagonital parties each have the backing of a major power who is aiding proliferation. That would be the true powderkeg.

No, the Israeli manufactured the plutonium at their Dimona facility, after receiving technical support from the French. The US exerted pressure on Israel to stop the plant. Politics changes a lot in 50 years.

China has taken a stand at it appears they are now saying we need nuclear balance in the middle east. Israel is unstable enough that a localised MAD in the middle east may be the best medium term solution for the region. This comes down to Bush's dangerous and evidently one sided non-proliferation commitments in 2004.

Has China said that they need nuclear balance in the region? And that such balance would be achieved by giving Iran nukes?

China also needs an oil ally, and for their point they have chosen wisely. Iran is powerful, internally stable, not hostile to China, has plenty of black gold and is currently without a partner.

And of all the nations that the US tapped as important sources of oil and other resources... how many did the US give nuclear weapons to? Or is that another mysterious Chinese thing.

The US could score points by forcing a Chinese veto, but the cost would be too high. Bush tried a puish for hegemony in the middle east relatively quietly. the comments that theb US reserves the right to attack nartions contructing WMD wouthout warning didnt get a lot of press space, it was there but downplayed small column stuff.

It got a lot of press space. The Bush doctrine was a very big deal.

halonachos wrote:I think he's counting the world wars, bosnia, somalia, both Iraq wars(oil is not important here, our gas has gone UP in price),vietnam, and korea. Those last two were against communism.

I never said the US hadn't engaged in wars for altruistic reasons. Fraz implied, and outright stated in an earlier thread, that the US only got dragged into wars. It's obviously a false claim, as the US, like any other power in history, gone to war on multiple occasions to protect and advance its economic interests.

And we have the right to do whatever we want to mexico, the carribean, and south america. We claimed authority over that entire hemisphere.

What?

Iran is stable? I also thought that China was working with venezuela for some of that oil.

Obviously China isn't too thrilled with us if they're trying to cut American sonar cables placed in international waters close to China.

1. I never said we only get dragged into wars, but that this nonsense about the US being this evil warmongering power is just nonsense from idiots who should wipe their nose and learn how to change their own diapers before they try to talk past their pacifiers.

2. Everyone leave off Brazil. Brazil belongs to Frazzled. If Frazzled can't have her no one can mu ah ah!

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:I think he's counting the world wars, bosnia, somalia, both Iraq wars(oil is not important here, our gas has gone UP in price),vietnam, and korea. Those last two were against communism.

I never said the US hadn't engaged in wars for altruistic reasons. Fraz implied, and outright stated in an earlier thread, that the US only got dragged into wars. It's obviously a false claim, as the US, like any other power in history, gone to war on multiple occasions to protect and advance its economic interests.

Okay then, sorry. I just thought there was some "Bash America" flu going around there. It's been quite common for the past 8 years and frankly I'm tired of it.

sebster wrote:

And we have the right to do whatever we want to mexico, the carribean, and south america. We claimed authority over that entire hemisphere.

What?

It was an old policy we have, called the monroe doctrine. It gave us full sphere of influence over the western hemisphere. We said that we would protect the western hemisphere from all attempts of colonization. Later, Theodore Roosevelt extended this to the point of saying we own the western hemisphere. I actually meant the comment as a joke.

I know my opinions dont matter much to dakka community , but for topics i am familiar with, i have to agree with Orlanth's explanation on Chinese mind sets.

To be honest he have amaze me countless times with how much in detail he knows for someone that ( i assume wasnt born in asia )

My last question no one bothered answering guess it was stupid or something, so i'll re word it.

Does it really matter how much more Nukes USA have compared to China. We are talking
about over kill now right? not talking about exterminating all life on earth.

Frazzled wrote:1. I never said we only get dragged into wars, but that this nonsense about the US being this evil warmongering power is just nonsense from idiots who should wipe their nose and learn how to change their own diapers before they try to talk past their pacifiers.

Anti-Mag said The massive scale of warfare post 1945 instigated, approved or manipulated by the US is staggering'

You replied by saying that was a Che Guevara comment, and listed some wars the US didn't instigate. I later pointed out US instigated conflicts, but you didn't reply.

halonachos wrote:Okay then, sorry. I just thought there was some "Bash America" flu going around there. It's been quite common for the past 8 years and frankly I'm tired of it.

Is cool. Never mean to bash the US, just don't want to lionise it either.

It was an old policy we have, called the monroe doctrine. It gave us full sphere of influence over the western hemisphere. We said that we would protect the western hemisphere from all attempts of colonization. Later, Theodore Roosevelt extended this to the point of saying we own the western hemisphere. I actually meant the comment as a joke.

Oh, okay cool. I knew about the Monroe doctrine, I just had no idea if you were being serious or not. For a second there I almost started yelling at you* but then thought I'd check if you were serious.




*Well, typing caps anyway

LunaHound wrote:I know my opinions dont matter much to dakka community , but for topics i am familiar with, i have to agree with Orlanth's explanation on Chinese mind sets.

What's the insight? Right now all I'm seeing is China is hiding its military expenditure to avoid scaring the West. It's ridiculous.

Does it really matter how much more Nukes USA have compared to China. We are talking
about over kill now right? not talking about exterminating all life on earth.

It does matter, somewhat, but also it doesn't matter. If you just look at nukes as a nation launching its full arsenal and having everything hit evenly across the planet and then account for the fallout then yeah, the US, China and Russia all have more than enough. But the thing with nukes is that you want yours hitting the other guy's silos before he gets his fueled and in the air. Given things can go a little astray, you generally want two or three nukes hitting the other guy's launch pads before he can launch, just to be sure. And then you want a whole pile more missiles just in case the other guy hits you first, you can be sure you're capable of retaliation. Of course, the other guys also want two or three nukes for each of yours, and whole pile of spare missiles as well. So it really does matter how many you've got, because you'll be concentrating on key targets and you can't be sure you'll get all your missiles in the air.

But on the other hand, there is the second strike capacity from subs, which means that even if you strike first and take out the other guy entirely, he'll have subs in the water that can retaliate, so it doesn't really matter, you can't 'win' a nuke war.

I dunno sebster if they are *hiding their military.

But i do know they are having ALOT of fun playing with media now. Example the recent Tibet incident during the olympics. They sure swept that under the rug really well ( throws up in disgust ) .