4 ms·

"China is net food and energy importer." Chinas wealth is based on neither. So what? Many rich countries import energy. BTW, China is serious about fusion and

"China is net food and energy importer." Chinas wealth is based on neither. So what? Many rich countries import energy. BTW, China is serious about fusion and thorium reactors. " China has an aeging population, and it's already a rapid shift." Most countries do and this can still Change. "- China's infrastructure isn't as well built as other countries and it will start degrading, and maintenance is a pain." I am sure that the huge and extensive bullet train network in the US won't show any sign of aging very soon. Just kidding. "- Supply chains are moving elsewhere." Unlikely, the Chinese type of clustering is hard to replicate. Lower things like textiles and assembly might move to Vietnam. Owned by Chinese companies. "The US controls space, and will solidify it's grip in the next 3 years. " Yes, sure. Good luck with that. Sure the Russian will also we happy about it. If I remember right, the next version of the S400 System can even shot satellites out of orbit, but I may be wrong. "What do you do about automation, if it wipes out jobs for all the restive angry young men?" Chinese will be leading in automation. Not sure about the angry young man. A Chinese person seems to be happier and more able to endure things in my experience. Strangely, I found many very sensitive to hunger. US vs China would be an interesting war. The US has very to no experience in fighting such a war. What most Americans don't know (and actually phrased to me in this way by my US professoer): The second world war was a German-Russian war in Europe. The US industrial might helped Russia, but the US fighting was negligible. Russia lost every two days as many people as the US in a ten year war against Vietnam. The US has never fought an equal opponent. Just as a word of caution.

shatnersbassoon 6y ago
> the US fighting was negligible. This is either ignorant or dishonest. Just because the US wasn't insanely profligate with lives, doesn't mean they didn't make a huge contribution to defeating Germany. Multiple German armies were defeated by the Western allies in Africa, Italy, France, the low countries and subsequently Germany. Germany's war production was crippled by USAAF and RAF bombing, and its transport was almost totally destroyed. Perhaps most importantly, Germany's ability to fuel its vehicles was removed by the bombing campaign. Literally thousands of 88mm guns were kept in the Reich because of the bombing, and these would have been on the Eastern front shredding Russians otherwise. Without this contribution, the USSR could at best have reached a stalemate. Anyone who denies this has an agenda.
- newdude116 6y ago
  Africa was never a major theater. Landing in the Normandy was in 44 (?). The war was lost in 42. For starters: http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ Start at 4:45
  - shatnersbassoon 6y ago
    Like I said, the number of deaths is not a good measure of contribution towards actual defeat. Sending punishment battalions to die in their hundreds of thousands was a Soviet choice, and not a good one. Allowing millions of men to be encircled in 1941 was Soviet incompetence. Likewise, sending men into battle unarmed was Soviet callousness. Africa absolutely was a major theatre. The defeat of the Axis in Libya and Tunisia removed their dominance over the mediterranean, and allowed the Suez canal trade routes a level of safety and ultimately ensured allied economic dominance. Russia would not have received the same level of economic support if it was not clear. The Germans had not lost the war in 1942. A less despotic leader could have strategically retreated 500 miles and stabilised after Stalingrad. Also, if you're uncertain about the year when the landings in Normandy took place, perhaps your overall grasp on events is less than perfect?
    - newdude116 6y ago
      9 out of 10 German soldiers died in the East...
      - bumby 6y ago
        And the US leaders used the metric of more dead Vietnamese than Americans as proof they were winning the war. They literally created the term “The McNamara Fallacy” because it’s a poor metric of success.
        newdude116 6y ago
        Then you seem to know more than most military historians about WW2. Impressive!

shatnersbassoon 6y ago

> the US fighting was negligible. This is either ignorant or dishonest. Just because the US wasn't insanely profligate with lives, doesn't mean they didn't make a huge contribution to defeating Germany. Multiple German armies were defeated by the Western allies in Africa, Italy, France, the low countries and subsequently Germany. Germany's war production was crippled by USAAF and RAF bombing, and its transport was almost totally destroyed. Perhaps most importantly, Germany's ability to fuel its vehicles was removed by the bombing campaign. Literally thousands of 88mm guns were kept in the Reich because of the bombing, and these would have been on the Eastern front shredding Russians otherwise. Without this contribution, the USSR could at best have reached a stalemate. Anyone who denies this has an agenda.

newdude116 6y ago
Africa was never a major theater. Landing in the Normandy was in 44 (?). The war was lost in 42. For starters: http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ http://www.fallen.io/ww2/ Start at 4:45
- shatnersbassoon 6y ago
  Like I said, the number of deaths is not a good measure of contribution towards actual defeat. Sending punishment battalions to die in their hundreds of thousands was a Soviet choice, and not a good one. Allowing millions of men to be encircled in 1941 was Soviet incompetence. Likewise, sending men into battle unarmed was Soviet callousness. Africa absolutely was a major theatre. The defeat of the Axis in Libya and Tunisia removed their dominance over the mediterranean, and allowed the Suez canal trade routes a level of safety and ultimately ensured allied economic dominance. Russia would not have received the same level of economic support if it was not clear. The Germans had not lost the war in 1942. A less despotic leader could have strategically retreated 500 miles and stabilised after Stalingrad. Also, if you're uncertain about the year when the landings in Normandy took place, perhaps your overall grasp on events is less than perfect?
  - newdude116 6y ago
    9 out of 10 German soldiers died in the East...
    - bumby 6y ago
      And the US leaders used the metric of more dead Vietnamese than Americans as proof they were winning the war. They literally created the term “The McNamara Fallacy” because it’s a poor metric of success.
      - newdude116 6y ago
        Then you seem to know more than most military historians about WW2. Impressive!