4 ms·

> or the regime remaining in power and China's head of state ascending to global dictator Doubt it. To conquer the world these days, you'd have to have an ant

by mrep 8y ago

> or the regime remaining in power and China's head of state ascending to global dictator Doubt it. To conquer the world these days, you'd have to have an anti-ICBM defense system that can stop thousands of nukes coming at you in every direction. The technological gap between the attacking country and the other one has to be absolutely massive for that too happen. I doubt the US with NATO would even risk that against north korea even with our massive technological advantage. Edit: When I said "To conquer the world these days", i was referring to the original comment about one country becoming a "global dictator".

est31 8y ago
> To conquer the world these days, you'd have to have an anti-ICBM defense system Yeah, nukes have led to a new phase of power conflicts where you don't have open style warfare any more amongst nuclear powers. I didn't mean that. The US didn't have to wage war against every country on earth after WW2 to become as powerful as it is now. The cold war, CIA, economic advancements, etc. were enough. I just see two problems: Western economies being stagnant while China expanding influence across the world with the OBOR project. It took hundreds of years for a small island north of Europe to build a global world spanning empire. But eventually, they were successful. China once had the capability to do this themselves but they decided not to, leaving the stage to the europeans. China hasn't even looked anywhere beyond their own country until a few years ago. They literally only have one military basis outside of the mainland, in Djibouti next to the bases of a bunch of other countries. They command far more wealth and power than England did when they started their colonial project so I'm sure that China will be able to pull it off far more quickly.
- mowiesprh 8y ago
  so uhhh how much are you paid per word and per post ? hmmm
- mrep 8y ago
  > The US didn't have to wage war against every country on earth after WW2 to become as powerful as it is now. The US isn't even remotely close to a global dictator so what is your point? > Western economies being stagnant while China expanding influence across the world with the OBOR project. Western economies are definitely not stagnant and China's economy should be taken with a grain of salt. > They command far more wealth and power than England did when they started their colonial project so I'm sure that China will be able to pull it off far more quickly. Nominally sure, but relatively is what matters and China "has" 2/3rd the GDP of both the EU and the US currently. Add in other countries like South Korea, Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia which are all more closely aligned with US economic policy and defense treaties like NATO and the Five Eyes; I find it hard to see China colonial projects having much effect.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> To conquer the world these days, you'd have to have an anti-ICBM defense system that can stop thousands of nukes coming at you in every direction Or you'd just need to do what the US did in the Cold War to become—for a time—the sole superpower: run a global race and have the opposition spend themselves into collapse competing with you, and swoop in and pick up the pieces; you probably need a couple cycles of that to establish durable de facto control, but if you've got the population and resources and aren't just leveraging an advantaged industrial position that the competition will close over time at the outset, being able to do multiple cycles while growing an advantage isn't implausible.
- mrep 8y ago
  > Or you'd just need to do what the US did in the Cold War to become—for a time—the sole superpower The US current superpower status is in no way what I would consider "conquer the world" nor the original quote I cited which was for being a "global dictator"

by mrep 8y ago

est31 8y ago

> To conquer the world these days, you'd have to have an anti-ICBM defense system Yeah, nukes have led to a new phase of power conflicts where you don't have open style warfare any more amongst nuclear powers. I didn't mean that. The US didn't have to wage war against every country on earth after WW2 to become as powerful as it is now. The cold war, CIA, economic advancements, etc. were enough. I just see two problems: Western economies being stagnant while China expanding influence across the world with the OBOR project. It took hundreds of years for a small island north of Europe to build a global world spanning empire. But eventually, they were successful. China once had the capability to do this themselves but they decided not to, leaving the stage to the europeans. China hasn't even looked anywhere beyond their own country until a few years ago. They literally only have one military basis outside of the mainland, in Djibouti next to the bases of a bunch of other countries. They command far more wealth and power than England did when they started their colonial project so I'm sure that China will be able to pull it off far more quickly.

mowiesprh 8y ago
so uhhh how much are you paid per word and per post ? hmmm
mrep 8y ago
> The US didn't have to wage war against every country on earth after WW2 to become as powerful as it is now. The US isn't even remotely close to a global dictator so what is your point? > Western economies being stagnant while China expanding influence across the world with the OBOR project. Western economies are definitely not stagnant and China's economy should be taken with a grain of salt. > They command far more wealth and power than England did when they started their colonial project so I'm sure that China will be able to pull it off far more quickly. Nominally sure, but relatively is what matters and China "has" 2/3rd the GDP of both the EU and the US currently. Add in other countries like South Korea, Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia which are all more closely aligned with US economic policy and defense treaties like NATO and the Five Eyes; I find it hard to see China colonial projects having much effect.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> To conquer the world these days, you'd have to have an anti-ICBM defense system that can stop thousands of nukes coming at you in every direction Or you'd just need to do what the US did in the Cold War to become—for a time—the sole superpower: run a global race and have the opposition spend themselves into collapse competing with you, and swoop in and pick up the pieces; you probably need a couple cycles of that to establish durable de facto control, but if you've got the population and resources and aren't just leveraging an advantaged industrial position that the competition will close over time at the outset, being able to do multiple cycles while growing an advantage isn't implausible.

mrep 8y ago
> Or you'd just need to do what the US did in the Cold War to become—for a time—the sole superpower The US current superpower status is in no way what I would consider "conquer the world" nor the original quote I cited which was for being a "global dictator"