China News Thread

[brvheart 1,752]

If we got everything, why were so many democrats and republicans against it?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I we got everything, why were so many democrats and republicans against it?

 

because the Nationalist right and the socialist left both have little understanding about the economics of trade

[Essay21 2,385]

 

 

because the Nationalist right and the socialist left both have little understanding about the economics of trade

 

two sides of the same idiot coin for sure

[Balloon guy 158]

BG arguing on behalf of fair labor practices, will wonders never cease.

 

 

Also the idea that we can let or prevent China from doing anything militarily through a trade embargo is hubris at this point. China has an advanced economy with advanced technology and an advanced military. They aren't north Korea, they already have a gigantic, nuclear capable military. If we wanted to prevent them from creating a military that threatened Taiwan or their other neighbors, we should have dropped the bomb on them during the Korean war. That ship sailed long ago. What prevents China from invading Taiwan is the same thing that kept Russia at bay during the Cold War, mutually assured destruction and them not willing to risk the US keeping it real.

 

For the record, I don't think the US would be willing to keep it real to save Taiwan, and I also think China knows it. How tolerant they are to take that risk in the future is a whole other question..

 

I was thinking of writing a short story about a guy coming from the future and telling America it has to go to war with China right now because we can defeat them now and in the future thy will destroy the world.

Kind of a "if you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler" story line but from the viewpoint of past.

 

They eat with sticks and their kids crap in the streets, I'm not that impressed with China

[Balloon guy 158]

Why does BG hate American consumers and want them to pay more for consumer goods ?

 

Also if you want to counter China militarily it helps to have Allies who you have friendly trading relationships with in the area and who you maybe are part of a Pact that covers the entire Pacific Region with. Maybe it could be called a partnership. How about the Trans Pacific Partnership.

 

Paying less while destroying your manufacturing base is short sided and only benefits the Aynn Rand types, not the people who think.

 

We do not need anyone to win any war. And trade with the US is still the best deal in town. For the foreseeable future we should dictate terms.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I was thinking of writing a short story about a guy coming from the future and telling America it has to go to war with China right now because we can defeat them now and in the future thy will destroy the world.

Kind of a "if you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler" story line but from the viewpoint of past.

 

They eat with sticks and their kids crap in the streets, I'm not that impressed with China

 

Again, the time for that was during the Korean war. It's nice that you don't respect either their technological level or their military capacity, but if you really believe we could defeat them now without destroying the world, you're dangerously delusional.

[Balloon guy 158]

 

 

Again, the time for that was during the Korean war. It's nice that you don't respect either their technological level or their military capacity, but if you really believe we could defeat them now without destroying the world, you're dangerously delusional.

 

It's almost like you don't know what a fiction book is.

The focus is on the moral dilemma presented by time travel if the future is unknown. The China choice is because it is the most feasible choice for a future problem that would require a huge step of faith for our timeline.

 

And we could beat China like a drum if we needed too.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

20 hours ago, Balloon guy said:

It's almost like you don't know what a fiction book is.

The focus is on the moral dilemma presented by time travel if the future is unknown. The China choice is because it is the most feasible choice for a future problem that would require a huge step of faith for our timeline.

 

And we could beat China like a drum if we needed too.

 

If you could time travel, why wouldn't you travel back to the Korean war, to a time when using nuclear weapons against them without them being able to respond in kind was plausible? By choosing now as the time to travel to, you're only ensuring that the world's destruction will be by our hand, not China's. To use your Hitler analogy, if you use 1944 as destination date, it's a little too late to effect the change you want.

 

The issue isn't could we beat china like a drum.. we could certainly make them glow. Could we do it, without leaving the rest of the globe uninhabitable, is the question. Spoiler alert: We couldn't.

[Balloon guy 158]

On 9/25/2019 at 7:52 PM, BigDMcGee said:

 

If you could time travel, why wouldn't you travel back to the Korean war, to a time when using nuclear weapons against them without them being able to respond in kind was plausible? By choosing now as the time to travel to, you're only ensuring that the world's destruction will be by our hand, not China's. To use your Hitler analogy, if you use 1944 as destination date, it's a little too late to effect the change you want.

 

The issue isn't could we beat china like a drum.. we could certainly make them glow. Could we do it, without leaving the rest of the globe uninhabitable, is the question. Spoiler alert: We couldn't.

I feel I'm going to have to dumb this down a bit.

 

Obviously time travel has limits. Didn't Terminator clearly show us that going back in time has limits or else the machines would have gone back to the 1830's and Little House on the Prairie would have ended at season one!

Why would you want to write a story without personal connection? By having a guy travel back to our time, we are part of the story. Now you can judge using your morality and world view because you are part of the conundrum. Would we NOW be able to judge the proclamation that a major war is needed to stop something that hasn't happened?

 

Non-nuclear war favors us in every matrix. Nuclear war only slightly favors us due to prevailing winds.

There is a difference between defeating an enemy and taking and enemies country. Is there any doubt we could level Afghanistan without going nuclear? The reason we haven't is based on commitment levels and ROE, not ability. Our Navy would wipe theirs out in a week, once they all showed up. Then air superiority in a couple weeks Then systematic destruction of their country would take a few months. We are the only country that can honestly project power. We've just done a really bad job of it lately ( since WW2 ) I blame politicians.