|
Mr Crustacean posted:China will not be shooting first in any conflict in the Western Pacific. It is in a prime advantageous position of being able to salami slice its way to get what it wants without the use of force. It already possesses those islands in the South China Sea and unless someone wants to start shooting them. It's not going to let go of them. Oh, you're literally taking the "inscrutable far thinking mandarin" position. You really don't understand China very well at all.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, the statistics are loving nuts. Exports were about 17% of Germany's GDP in 1914. In the US right now we only have about 12% of GDP reliant on exports. China is anywhere between 18% and 25% depending on what numbers you like. That's more than Germany in 1914, but it's still within the same rough ballpark. If you want to read an OK account of the massive growth in trade that took place over the 'first phase of globalization' - roughly from Napoleon through the beginning of WW1 - check this site out: http://ourworldindata.org/data/global-interconnections/international-trade/
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
cool more amateur hour strategopolitics  
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
 Some pretty rear end 5th gen airplanes. Seems that these are the price of admission to a high end war in the 21st century. Just noticed that the J20 seems to be the only one with divertless supersonic intakes since they were stolen off the F35  I've read that the PAK-FA is more of a Flanker bodykit that something built from the ground up for low observability. And that the canards on the J20 are a rather large impediment to stealth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Oh, you're literally taking the "inscrutable far thinking mandarin" position. While it's true that Chinese politicians sometimes have moments of "Mah legacy!" like with Jiang who thought he could maybe secure Reunification during his tenure to cement his legacy as being on par with Mao; I think it's also not so simple as the Chinese politburo checking in a constant while loop of "return CanWeIntoTaiwan?". I think the argument that there is a long term consensus has merit and one started by Deng but probably more militarily oriented than posited. Long term economic growth that will eventually carry military investment along with it until they get to the point they can challenge the status quo if the need arises. The largest worry would be some popular widespread outburst of nationalism forcing a military solution because non of the current generation have the clout to get the PLA to do what they're told that Mao, Deng, and Jiang did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:While it's true that Chinese politicians sometimes have moments of "Mah legacy!" like with Jiang who thought he could maybe secure Reunification during his tenure to cement his legacy as being on par with Mao; I think it's also not so simple as the Chinese politburo checking in a constant while loop of "return CanWeIntoTaiwan?". I think the argument that there is a long term consensus has merit and one started by Deng but probably more militarily oriented than posited. Long term economic growth that will eventually carry military investment along with it until they get to the point they can challenge the status quo if the need arises. There was a foreign policy consensus since Deng that was largely derailed by the 2008 financial crisis, which both sundered China's economy (though we're only starting to feel the effects of it now thanks to the debt binge Beijing went on in 2009 in order to avoid a crash) and gave rise to a "West/USA declining, BRICS/China rising" narrative that had been simmering since the mid-oughts when China was posting insanely high growth and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were becoming more obviously boondoggles. So we have Xi, who has become more authoritarian and made more overt appeals to nationalism than any leader since Mao, both because the CCP's legitimacy requires it and because the "China perpetually rising" narrative has gone to people's heads. There are a lot of hawks in China who legitimately believe that if they went to war with the USA, right now in 2015, they would win because it's China's destiny to win and the weak-willed and gridlocked US democracy doesn't have the stomach to fight. This worries me because on the whole it's eerily similar to how Japan thought in the 1930's. But I digress. Lots of people think that the Chinese are by their nature long history because something something long history something something they don't have to worry about election, but the truth of the matter is they aren't. They're just as prone to making miscalculations and other errors based on short-term arrogance and anxiety as any other country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Someone post cool pictures of airplanes quick!  
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Wonder how much of a problem the exposed engine nozzle is. The F-22 is the only one that really has it tucked, and that includes the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:
I don't mean to be all LOL CHINA but the J20 seriously looks like someone watched Stealth and then tried to make a flyable version 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
 painting aircraft black makes them 100x cooler  The first Viggen prototype, before it started growing weird bulges everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:China will not be shooting first in any conflict in the Western Pacific. It is in a prime advantageous position of being able to salami slice its way to get what it wants without the use of force. It already possesses those islands in the South China Sea and unless someone wants to start shooting them. It's not going to let go of them. You keep posting these weird, disconnected screeds about The Peaceful Rise Of China, but you seem to fundamentally not understand that there are actors besides the United States and China involved, or the international order as it exists now. Your claim that "All the claims in the south china sea are bullshit. All of them. From all claimants." followed by the assertion that might makes right is kinda insane, especially when juxtaposed with your complaints about US intervention in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Kids these days take IR 101 and think they know everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You keep posting these weird, disconnected screeds about The Peaceful Rise Of China, but you seem to fundamentally not understand that there are actors besides the United States and China involved, or the international order as it exists now. Your claim that "All the claims in the south china sea are bullshit. All of them. From all claimants." followed by the assertion that might makes right is kinda insane, especially when juxtaposed with your complaints about US intervention in the middle east. Look, the moral and legal pretence behind the use of force got blown out of the water by US invasions throughout the 2001-2013 period. The US has shown the way and the world is following on. Ideally it wouldn't be like this because it's a loving terrible state of affairs. ideally there would be a moral and legal justification for the use of force. But if the US can do without it, then the rest of the world follows that example. Mr Crustacean fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:14
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Look, the moral and legal pretence behind the use of force got blown out of the water by US invasions throughout the 2001-2013 period. Saddam Hussein, peaceful occupier of Kuwait.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Hey, what's the difference between him and Putin's Russian proxy war into Ukriane. They're both highly destabilising, highly detrimental acts to international stability. It's only that Russia is powerful enough to get away with it. This is the world where no one gives a flying gently caress about what is right or moral or legal any more and now just does what it has the power to do. It's a horrific state of affairs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:23
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Hey, what's the difference between him and Putin's Russian proxy war into Ukriane. They're both highly destabilising, highly detrimental acts to international stability. It's only that Russia is powerful enough to get away with it. But you're saying it's the USAs fault from 200x onwards
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
That Works posted:But you're saying it's the USAs fault from 200x onwards Not entirely, but it sure as gently caress didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:30
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Not entirely, but it sure as gently caress didn't help. I'm not even sure what your point is. That the world is a scary and bad place and that its the USAs fault but oh wait not really but wait it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
That Works posted:I'm not even sure what your point is. That the world is a scary and bad place and that its the USAs fault but oh wait not really but wait it is. The point is that is that if the US did not engage in those wars it would be in a stronger position for the upcoming 21st century and the world would be a more peaceful place, and better place for it. The point is that is the decision making that lead to those wars was so terrible that it should be re examined and publicised so that it never occurs again. The point is that anyone who refuses to acknowledge that those wars were ~a bad idea~ may still not have learnt those lessons and may conduct wars of a similar nature again. The US should take a leaf out of Israel's book and conduct a national debrief to ensure it doesn't make such a terrible strategic decision like that again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winograd_Commission Mr Crustacean fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Hey, what's the difference between him and Putin's Russian proxy war into Ukriane. They're both highly destabilising, highly detrimental acts to international stability. It's only that Russia is powerful enough to get away with it. No no no no no no. Stop. You're so sophomoric it is making my head hurt. Just stop it. Drawing parallels between Hussein, Putin, and the South China Sea is so far off track you've lost GPS signal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:
The first two are all pretenders on account of engine tech. The F-22 isn't so dominant because of its stealth and sensors; it's that loving sci-fi powerplant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Why does the J-20 look so different from its Russian and American counterparts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:This is the world where no one gives a flying gently caress about what is right or moral or legal any more and now just does what it has the power to do. Good job summing up pretty much the entire history of human civilization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
ITT we have discovered Realpolitik
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Leather Bear posted:The first two are all pretenders on account of engine tech. The F-22 isn't so dominant because of its stealth and sensors; it's that loving sci-fi powerplant. Although I'd say that that ridiculous engine also feeds back into stealth in that it lets them make some choices that favor it over power and still have thrust to spare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:14
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:ITT we have discovered Realpolitik Wait until he goes down the rabbit hole of nuclear stability theory
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Basically the F-22 owns. Even though it looks like a fat toad parked on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Leather Bear posted:Basically the F-22 owns. Even though it looks like a fat toad parked on the ground. It's like an ugly duckling turning into the most beautiful swan, every time the pilot retracts the gear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Wait until he goes down the rabbit hole of nuclear stability theory I don't understand why everyone is so worried about Iran having nuclear weapons. It would just mean nobody could invade them and the world would be a lot safer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Wait until he goes down the rabbit hole of nuclear stability theory That's not til next semester.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
I've been slowly working my way through the China.jpg thread and when today I came across this picture I immediately saved this because I knew it would come in handy.  Didn't expect to use it so soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
That is extremely apt for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:ITT we have discovered Realpolitik Anything else is just wishes and dreams. I just want one thing. For the decision makers in the most powerful country in the world not to choose such a terrible decision again. Is that fair? I think it's a reasonable request from the voterbase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Well, want in one hand and poo poo in another...
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
That Works posted:Well, want in one hand and poo poo in another... That's why you remind people why it was such a terrible idea, so they don't try it again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Post plane pics:
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:Look, the moral and legal pretence behind the use of force got blown out of the water by US invasions throughout the 2001-2013 period. In one case, arguably. quote:The US has shown the way and the world is following on. What does this even mean? quote:Ideally it wouldn't be like this because it's a loving terrible state of affairs. ideally there would be a moral and legal justification for the use of force. But if the US can do without it, then the rest of the world follows that example. What? Yeah, that describes absolutely nothing that's happened, so...huh? Mr Crustacean posted:The point is that is that if the US did not engage in those wars it would be in a stronger position for the upcoming 21st century and the world would be a more peaceful place, and better place for it.  Are you just loving around with us now?This guy, however: TheFluff posted:
...is onto something. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Lol the U.S. will follow its strategic interests whether you think its bad or not and like it or not the Mid East and the south pacific fall in those categories. Like the old quote " Who rules the rimland rules Eurasia, who rules Eurasia contols the destinies of the world".
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
 "the spice must flow": Vladimir Putin's dog's chess teacher in my global affairs 100 class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:25
|
|
