|
It's very hard to see China surpassing the US militarily without massive changes in geopolitics. I mean completely revolutionary, world-turned-upside-down changes. China is surrounded by countries that are ambivalent (Russia, India) or downright hostile (Japan, ASEAN). Its clumsy attempts to dominate the only "little countries" available in Southeast Asia have been met with solidarity and resistance. China's power projection is nothing right now, but even if they built a world-class military it's hard to envision them projecting power anything like effectively. Expand its sphere to Russian territory? No. West to the stans? Maybe, but the former Soviet states are still very much Russia's backyard and they'd have to wrassle for it. East to the North Pacific? Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are right there, all wealthy US allies with no intention of being pushed around. South? Nope, the Himalayas and a united Indian state prevent that.* So Southeast is the last option, and China has managed to fumble its foreign policy there badly, making its intent to dominate obvious and driving many ASEAN states straight to the US for protection. So even if China builds a world-class navy, where are they going to sail it? Not past Taiwan or Japanese possessions. Maybe into the South China Sea, but if any of those ASEAN countries are hostile that sea is so confined that land-based attacks are a cheap and effective deterrent. And... that's it, there's nowhere else to go, no West Coast, and Malacca is a bad substitute for Panama. In contrast the United States is surrounded by allies and states that it can dominate. The US has two wide open coasts, a special relationship with Panama, and can sail practically anywhere in the world without bumping into something approaching a competent non-allied naval force or a land-based threat. Basically, China is hemmed in, and the US can go anywhere in the world. The US is just far, far better situated to project global power. *China's permanent "all-weather friendship" relationship with Pakistan is just a great idea, too. Someone somewhere somehow thought it was worth a permanently disgruntled India to hedge against the threat of an Indian invasion over the Himalayas. Come to think of it the PRC has really sucked at diplomacy since forever.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
I agree with your geopolitical analysis, but China will be able push past a lot of barriers if they have money. If and when they become the world's largest economy and keep on growing, diplomacy will be easier for them. America's Cold War economic strategy was intimately tied with its economic alliances and ultimately its economic system. America was able to offer its allies not only cash payments and 'aid' (which China is currently limited to), but entry into an economic club and worldwide system that ensured that potential ally's future prosperity. Once China becomes the world's largest economy, that system will be China's system because it will be able to offer its allies so much more than it can now. You will see that a lot of doors that were otherwise closed will become open to China, and many of the problems you mentioned will be attenuated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I agree with your geopolitical analysis, but China will be able push past a lot of barriers if they have money. If and when they become the world's largest economy and keep on growing, diplomacy will be easier for them. America's Cold War economic strategy was intimately tied with its economic alliances and ultimately its economic system. America was able to offer its allies not only cash payments and 'aid' (which China is currently limited to), but entry into an economic club and worldwide system that ensured that potential ally's future prosperity. Once China becomes the world's largest economy, that system will be China's system because it will be able to offer its allies so much more than it can now. You will see that a lot of doors that were otherwise closed will become open to China, and many of the problems you mentioned will be attenuated. Of course the issue is that while China will have a large economy, it won't be "rich" and GDP per capita will probably still be below the global median for most of the population. China has been giving aid out to large parts of the third world, it usually comes in the form of mega-projects that have had mixed success. Basically, China is still going to have to take care of 1.5 billion people in its borders with trying to bribe other countries, countries that for a large part that already have an adversarial relationship with China. Also, even when China inches up to be #1, it is unlikely to dominate the world's economy in the same way by the sheer fact that the US isn't going to disappear and neither will India not to mention, the rest of the developed world. If anything you might very well have a Cold War between India and China, and China just can't be rich enough to bribe them. If anything China will be bogged down with much more tepid growth, social strife, environmental damage and the costs of taking care of a vast elderly population (and the impact of the one-child policy). Obviously India will have similar issues, but we are taking about China's hegemony. Anyway, the United States' power really comes much more than from having the largest economy in the world. Its military, its strategic position and most importantly, its cultural influence gives it a decisive edge. How much of the world at least knows some English? How about Coca-Cola, Iron man, Mcdonalds or KFC? I think we have been sold a bill of goods about China, yes at some point they will surpass the United States in nominal GDP but that doesn't mean the world will flip on its axis in political, military and cultural terms. That said, this is assuming that there isn't vast economic turmoil much sooner or even slower growth which may stretch it out even longer. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Of course the issue is that while China will have a large economy, it won't be "rich" and GDP per capita will probably still be below the global median for most of the population. True, but in aggregate totality, the Chinese economy would have the full weight of being the largest economy. That means whatever America has the power to purchase as a nation(aircraft carriers, etc...), China should be able to match and surpass despite the average Chinese citizen being in far worse condition than his American counterpart. quote:Also, even when China inches up to be #1, it is unlikely to dominate the world's economy in the same way by the sheer fact that the US isn't going to disappear and neither will India not to mention, the rest of the developed world. If anything you might very well have a Cold War between India and China, and China just can't be rich enough to bribe them. If anything China will be bogged down with much more tepid growth, social strife, environmental damage and the costs of taking care of a vast elderly population (and the impact of the one-child policy). Obviously India will have similar issues, but we are taking about China's hegemony. I think India doesn't even belong in the same conversation. Indian GDP isn't anywhere on the list and they have even more problems than China. I think the real competition will be a US-Chinese competition in a pseudo-Cold War. The world will be multi-polar again just the same as when the US and the USSR were the two poles. This time, it will be more complicated since the world economy is so intertwined. The problems you enumerated with China are a good point, and it remains to be seen how the government resolves them and what effect they have on the economy/stability of China. quote:
I agree with this, as was my post on the previous page about culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:True, but in aggregate totality, the Chinese economy would have the full weight of being the largest economy. That means whatever America has the power to purchase as a nation(aircraft carriers, etc...), China should be able to match and surpass despite the average Chinese citizen being in far worse condition than his American counterpart. Yeah but that very well might not be the case since even if you have the largest economy in the world, you are going to have considerable other costs. In the case of China, they have 4-5 times as many people to handle than the United States that can very likely impact their ability to dump into their military budget. Also if your talking about military strategy, Chinese fleets will be relatively hemmed in by their neighbors. I doubt Japan, Taiwan, Russia and Vietnam can easily be bribed and so Chinese fleets won't just be directly competing with the US but half of Asia on top of the US. quote:I think India doesn't even belong in the same conversation. Indian GDP isn't anywhere on the list and they have even more problems than China. I think the real competition will be a US-Chinese competition in a pseudo-Cold War. The world will be multi-polar again just the same as when the US and the USSR were the two poles. This time, it will be more complicated since the world economy is so intertwined. The problems you enumerated with China are a good point, and it remains to be seen how the government resolves them and what effect they have on the economy/stability of China. I think you dismiss India way too easily especially since India and China already share an actively contested border. India's economy most likely won't be small enough to ignore especially as China has to deal with all Russia, the US, Japan and the rest of Asia on top of them. China is in a pretty miserable geo-political position. I think the situation is much more likely that the US will sit back and pull the strings bit while China struggles with their immediate neighbors. In addition, the days of easy growth for China are almost certainly at a end while China will grow richer it will only do so much more slowly while its costs (especially natural resources) will rise. If anything I think China will have a budget crunch that will limit its ability to expand its military or just flat out bribe the rest of the world. The US took advantage of the end of the war to expand its influence on the relative cheap, but China is relatively diplomatically isolated and doesn't really have a long list of strong allies which means it will be much easier to contain especially if its neighbors like India, Russia, Japan etc can do the "heavy lifting" while the US just sells them weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Guys this is too many words for "status quo."
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Guys this is too many words for "status quo." Will it be though? It's going to go from a unipolar world that existed for several decades to a bi-polar one again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:True, but in aggregate totality, the Chinese economy would have the full weight of being the largest economy. That means whatever America has the power to purchase as a nation(aircraft carriers, etc...), China should be able to match and surpass despite the average Chinese citizen being in far worse condition than his American counterpart. ... no? Think about this assertion harder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:... no? Think about this assertion harder. Why not? I mean if America has 15 trillion GDP, it can reasonably afford say 50 F-22's. If China has 17 Trillion GDP, it should be able to afford 50 F-22's or whatever equivalent poo poo they have. And when they go to war, it will be 50 F-22's vs 50 F-22's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Why not? I mean if America has 15 trillion GDP, it can reasonably afford say 50 F-22's. If China has 17 Trillion GDP, it should be able to afford 50 F-22's or whatever equivalent poo poo they have. And when they go to war, it will be 50 F-22's vs 50 F-22's. In order to build an F-22 you need not only money, but also sufficient quantities of extremely advanced, highly specialized human and physical capital. The US has both, while China won't have the latter for many decades. To give you an idea of how far China is behind - they are just now sorting out how to land planes on aircraft carriers, something even India has already mastered. (The US figured that out in the 1930s.) China also has only three world-class universities, and maybe five more that are at a decent international standard. The US has probably 25 world-class universities and over 100 decent quality ones. Soy Division fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Why not? I mean if America has 15 trillion GDP, it can reasonably afford say 50 F-22's. If China has 17 Trillion GDP, it should be able to afford 50 F-22's or whatever equivalent poo poo they have. And when they go to war, it will be 50 F-22's vs 50 F-22's. Thats not really how budgets work, just because an economy is a certain size doesn't mean all of its resources are easily available. If China is tied down to other costs, it will effect its net budget (same could be said with the US). I think it will be somewhere in between a uni and bipolar world, the US will be challenged by China to some extent but it won't be the same relationship as the Cold War. The US more likely will be the "first among equals" of the developed world based on its pre-existing relationships with EU/Japan and probably growing relationships with India and even Russia. The US won't be the sole superpower on earth, but just based on a combination of factors will still be the strongest one: a 1 and a half pole world if you want. It won't be the status quo exactly but the entire world isn't going to flip its axis either. It isn't a prediction that is going to cause people to tune in to CNN though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
GDP is important but when you're poor as gently caress most of that money is going towards feeding and clothing your people and keeping your country from falling apart. The world isn't a lovely strategy game, "oh no china's gold production is slighter higher than ours, they'll be able to buy more tanks!" This isn't WWII with 2 sides throwing all their industrial production and mans at each other. Although I'd say Russia is a bit of a wild-card here with it's steady decent into more and more blatant dictatorship and ever increasing anti-western propaganda, its certainly no US ally and they currently seem determined (to at least talk to talk) about re-building their prestige and countering the west. But if we're going by GDP Russia only has about the same GDP as Canada so clearly a threat to no one ever. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
On the other hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers By this gentleman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kennedy Who states that the emergence and rise of great powers is all about $$$$$$$$$$.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Although I'd say Russia is a bit of a wild-card here with it's steady decent into more and more blatant dictatorship and ever increasing anti-western propaganda, its certainly no US ally and they currently seem determined (to at least talk to talk) about re-building their prestige and countering the west. But if we're going by GDP Russia only has about the same GDP as Canada so clearly a threat to no one ever. I think I'm going to ignore Russia for the next 50 years. Their economy sucks and they have so many problems. They are relevant to no one except probably as a side-kick to China in the coming century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Re: the paul kennedy thesis, he also states that the death knell of any great power is imperial overstretch, where they grow too large to maintain their power and collapse. China is massive, and large swathes of its territory are essentially conquered vassal countries. You could argue that they already have overstretch built in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Not to mention that China's natural resource endowments (an important source of national wealth) are relatively unimpressive for a country of its size. They have some oil and gas in Xinjiang, decent coal reserves, and a lot of rare earths, and that's about it as far as I know. The US has more oil and gas (especially if you include Canada), more coal, and could have more rare earths if it really wanted to. (You have to really rape the environment to extract rare earths, which is one reason why China is such a big producer. The US used to have a fairly large rare earth mining industry. Then environmentalism became a thing, and mining towns started to have massive cancer outbreaks.) Soy Division fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Are all those autonomous regions a net positive or negative for China's economy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Are all those autonomous regions a net positive or negative for China's economy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Back on topic, baby formula on the front page of the NYT. Not much news here but interesting that the issue is getting such visibility. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/world/asia/chinas-search-for-infant-formula-goes-global.html quote:Chinese Search for Infant Formula Goes Global
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I think I'm going to ignore Russia for the next 50 years. Their economy sucks and they have so many problems. They are relevant to no one except probably as a side-kick to China in the coming century. I think it is more likely Russia will be fighting desperately to retain Siberia if anything else. Russia is maybe anti-Western to some extent, but they are not so secretly thrilled with the Chinese who they view as their most direct territorial competitor. If anything there might be an "enemy of my enemy" situation with the US propping Russia up as a northern bulwark against Chinese reach (although the Russians would never admit they needed the help). Russia and China have talked a lot about better relations but in reality they have have remained quite frigid. Yeah, China produces most of the rare earth metals not because they happened to all fall within China, just no one else wanted to put the investment in for that sort of dirty industry if the Chinese were willing to do so. Granted, we are only talk about power relations between each of the countries in a relative sense, personally I think there will massive economic turmoil across humanity as the same time. You can make strong arguments that each of the aforementioned nations will see that turmoil in different ways. That said, I think most of the violence that will happen won't happen at the international but intra-national level as governments around the world clear the streets. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jul 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
I would be so stressed as a parent in China right now. I can't imagine the pressure and stress of having to go overseas to buy food for your baby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Real life is not Civ where you can just spend gold to fast build units. That's because the PLAN is a largely brown-water navy. Second Artillery (their ballistic missile guys) are China's main 'force projection' arm (due to the South China Sea's restrictions on force projection via boats). Real life isn't Civ, but it also means there's plenty of alternate paths that are equally viable. They're behind in some ways but in many ways (infantry and SAM doctrine, ballistic missiles) they're significantly more advanced than the US. China's plans insofar as military counters go are basically "we blow up all your bases with difficult-to-intercept non-nuclear ballistic missiles and then let your forces wither on the vine. Also we now have the capability to threaten moving warships with ballistic missiles too." I think we're used to, in an America-centric world, seeing American military doctrine as the only way to do things, especially since even the Soviets used doctrine that superficially seemed to be a mirror-image of American doctrine (or were pooh-poohed as being unskilled Zerg rushers even when they had excellent strategic doctrine). Anyways, I think a bilateral world would probably be better for everyone involved. Without the ability to go 'we're not #1 yet and need to work harder on nationalism' the CCP has more reason to do at least some level of reform, and without the ability to go 'we're the undisputed rulers of the world, go gently caress yourself', America might get its poo poo together in terms of not being hypocritical jokers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
I remember when during the cold war the US was so much more ethical and not at all hypocritical in its domestic and foreign policies. America will just go "OH gently caress CHINA!!" and use it as an excuse to pour even more money into the military, conduct even more imperialism in Asia, and clamp down on more unrelated things (we need an internet kill-switch in case of chinese hackers!)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I would be so stressed as a parent in China right now. I can't imagine the pressure and stress of having to go overseas to buy food for your baby. How well-founded are fears about contamination of mainland formula? Obviously it's a real concern due to the melamine poisoning but is this extreme level of aversion we're seeing now really warranted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Torka posted:How well-founded are fears about contamination of mainland formula? Obviously it's a real concern due to the melamine poisoning but is this extreme level of aversion we're seeing now really warranted? I read somewhere that thousands of babies were hospitalized due to the contamination.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:That's because the PLAN is a largely brown-water navy. Second Artillery (their ballistic missile guys) are China's main 'force projection' arm (due to the South China Sea's restrictions on force projection via boats). Real life isn't Civ, but it also means there's plenty of alternate paths that are equally viable. They're behind in some ways but in many ways (infantry and SAM doctrine, ballistic missiles) they're significantly more advanced than the US. China's plans insofar as military counters go are basically "we blow up all your bases with difficult-to-intercept non-nuclear ballistic missiles and then let your forces wither on the vine. Also we now have the capability to threaten moving warships with ballistic missiles too." China's infantry doctrine hasn't been tested, and if possible I would like to hear where you heard that from or know about more than them just having the numbers to field a massive army. Their missile technology is undoubtedly top notch, which we are trying to keep up with in defense (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9b7312dc7bf5). And their air capabilities have seen some gains recently in developing (copying) modern planes. The navy of course lags the most with some reliance on foreign equipment still and is a brown water navy, but seems to be a focus in defense spending in upcoming years to increase capability. But overall they have a solid defensive military, with some offensive capability in the immediate region. And American military doctrine has been the standard as there haven't been many competitors, there isn't a large sample to choose modern military doctrines from. I wouldn't say the Soviets "mirrored" us, Europe in the Cold war was filled with mimicking on both sides for the perceived battle in Europe (i.e. "You're placing tanks here? I'm going to place my tanks there, too"). Outside of the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, large-scale warfare doctrine has pretty much been the same since WW2/Korea, and I'd assume the Chinese haven't strayed too far from then, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Can't forget that when China invaded Vietnam in 1979 they lost roughly 28,000 men in just one month, compared to the 58,000 dead for the US during their nearly 20 year involvement in Vietnam. To my knowledge the PLA has been untested in combat since then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Mustang posted:Can't forget that when China invaded Vietnam in 1979 they lost roughly 28,000 men in just one month, compared to the 58,000 dead for the US during their nearly 20 year involvement in Vietnam. I forgot about their invasion of Vietnam, though didn't know about their significant losses. Don't forget the Vietnamese had just finished with the U.S. a few years earlier and may not have fully demobilized/still full of experienced troops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Was Nestle even more successful than usual in pushing baby formula to the Chinese or is it just a cultural thing over there or is there enough widespread contamination to make it a non-viable option there or what? I could understand if it was baby food, but it seems strange for baby formula to be such a vital commodity to a country rather than an important supplement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Zenzirouj posted:Was Nestle even more successful than usual in pushing baby formula to the Chinese or is it just a cultural thing over there or is there enough widespread contamination to make it a non-viable option there or what? I could understand if it was baby food, but it seems strange for baby formula to be such a vital commodity to a country rather than an important supplement. Breast feeding isn't easy especially with the added pressure of the one child policy. People are probably nervous that even with breast feeding their kid isn't getting the maximum nutrition it could get. Formula is expensive but you can measure it out and get a quantitative measure of how much your baby is ingesting. With breast feeding you never know exactly how much your baby eats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
shiffty posted:China's infantry doctrine hasn't been tested, and if possible I would like to hear where you heard that from or know about more than them just having the numbers to field a massive army. Their missile technology is undoubtedly top notch, which we are trying to keep up with in defense (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9b7312dc7bf5). And their air capabilities have seen some gains recently in developing (copying) modern planes. The navy of course lags the most with some reliance on foreign equipment still and is a brown water navy, but seems to be a focus in defense spending in upcoming years to increase capability. But overall they have a solid defensive military, with some offensive capability in the immediate region. Basically, their infantry doctrine is based on a few things that Iraq/Afghanistan/etc have taught us: 1. Light infantry are immensely hard to reduce via airpower even if you've got the best air force in the world, unless you do poo poo like 'nuke everything and then keep nuking the rubble' (at which point nothing matters but nukes). 2. Rifles are generally incapable of producing significant numbers of casualties. The Taliban are basically RPG-centric, while ISAF forces outsource their firepower (see what I did there, an outsourcing joke in a China thread ha ha ha so funny) to heavy units like tanks and planes. 3. Rockets are awesome. See the Taliban, above. So basically their infantry doctrine is light on the body armor and heavy on the rocket and grenade launchers, so that any infantry platoon has a ton of ways to threaten or kill enemy vehicles. Sure, bullets hurt but bullets don't kill very many people, and rifle-proof body armor won't save you from rockets. That's the basic difference in a nutshell. quote:And American military doctrine has been the standard as there haven't been many competitors, there isn't a large sample to choose modern military doctrines from. I wouldn't say the Soviets "mirrored" us, Europe in the Cold war was filled with mimicking on both sides for the perceived battle in Europe (i.e. "You're placing tanks here? I'm going to place my tanks there, too"). Outside of the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, large-scale warfare doctrine has pretty much been the same since WW2/Korea, and I'd assume the Chinese haven't strayed too far from then, either. There are some specific assumptions US military doctrine makes vis a vis air wars and ground wars that, say, Russia or China don't automatically make. They're broadly similar but there are specific differences. Baronjutter posted:I remember when during the cold war the US was so much more ethical and not at all hypocritical in its domestic and foreign policies. Well, that's the best case. I mean yeah, things can get horrible but I'd like to see the glass as half full.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
No, OH gently caress YOU, and hammering down the production button until it breaks is how America makes war. Also ballistic missiles are ballistic missiles, We will have no idea if they are nuclear or not until they hit, and thus america will press the big red button and start popping chinese cities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Granted, I think the more important military comparison isn't between the US and China, but between Japan/Taiwan/Vietnam/Russia versus China. Taiwan still has a considerable military, Vietnam seems to be buying more and more top-tier weapons and Japan seems to be slowly but surely expanding its navy. The balance of power seems to depend much more on China's relationship with its neighbors than the US. I think there has a "Tom Clancy-ization" of some type of epic conflict between China and the US, when it will probably be a much drier contest between proxy states. In addition, raining missiles down on Taiwan for example has issues of its own. The situation is much more of a chess game than a game of risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
And, of course, what can't be ignored are the various time bombs China is sitting on. I'm not talking the ghost towns, but rather the massive ecological and health issues upcoming. From air quality resulting in a stunted next generation to a dust bowl that's going to make the Joads look tame to cancer cities, they've got some expenditures coming. Admittedly, China could take a 'gently caress 'em, let 'em die' stance and possibly will, but that won't help when there's no food being grown. And, of course, the one child policy is resulting in a lot of men with no wives, which should get interesting. Manufacturing is slowly shifting out of China as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I think the more important military comparison isn't between the US and China, but between Japan/Taiwan/Vietnam/Russia versus China. I think it's going to be Japan/Taiwan/Vietnam/S.Korea/India forming a noose geo-politically around China and hemming it in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I think the more important military comparison isn't between the US and China, but between Japan/Taiwan/Vietnam/Russia versus China. Yeah I'd anticipate at worst a bloody proxy war in central Africa or the mid-east or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:The US has more oil and gas (especially if you include Canada), more coal, and could have more rare earths if it really wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:And, of This. I'm a little concerned as to how the unrest generated by a bunch of horny virgins will- ... is there a Chinese 4chan? Baronjutter posted:I remember when during the cold war the US was so much more ethical and not at all hypocritical in its domestic and foreign policies. I'm banking that you're being sarcastic in the first line; because just like the American interventions of the past, Chinese intervention also has this unfortunate propensity to generate and prop up hellhole dictatorships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:This. I'm a little concerned as to how the unrest generated by a bunch of horny virgins will- My long term bet there was conflict with Russia over Siberia, but I'm not that sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Breast feeding isn't easy especially with the added pressure of the one child policy. People are probably nervous that even with breast feeding their kid isn't getting the maximum nutrition it could get. Formula is expensive but you can measure it out and get a quantitative measure of how much your baby is ingesting. With breast feeding you never know exactly how much your baby eats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 01:06
|
|