4 ms·

Nobody in the US that is under the age of about 40-45 has personal experience of a time when the US was not "Number One". Consequently they think the US being "

Nobody in the US that is under the age of about 40-45 has personal experience of a time when the US was not "Number One". Consequently they think the US being "Number One" is a forever thing. It isn't a forever thing. Some of us who are old enough can remember the shock to the Nation's psyche when the Soviets launched the first satellite, and then again when the Soviets launched the first man in orbit. The cycle has turned. The US is not all-powerful any more, and the sooner the leaders of the country acknowledge that, the less likely it is that the US will be sent down in flames. But, being so self-deluded, the US will take on an adversary that has not only 4 times the number of military-age men but also has a far greater manufacturing capacity. The outcome will mirror what happened when the all-conquering Wehrmacht took on a Soviet Union that was twice its size in population and had far greater manufacturing capacity.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
powerapple 5y ago
US' GDP per capital is more than 6x than China's GDP per capital. China has a bigger population, and when China's GDP is the same as US, its per capital GDP will still be 1/4 or 1/5 of US. Even it loses the first seat as a country, its people are still better off than others.
- simonblack 5y ago
  "Better off" is no consolation when your country is being rolled over by a more powerful adversary. The British were richer than the Germans in 1940. That didn't prevent Dunkirk. The Americans and British were richer than the Japanese in 1941. That didn't prevent Pearl Harbor, Manila, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> But, being so self-deluded, the US will take on an adversary that has not only 4 times the number of military-age men but also has a far greater manufacturing capacity. The number of military-age men is irrelevant in modern warfare and the type of conflict that the US and China would be engaged in. As for greater manufacturing capacity, the Japanese had excellent manufacturing capacity too. And just like Japan, China has major energy problems that will make it hugely vulnerable if there's a military conflict. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/07/china-energy-crisis-electricity-coal-pricing-renewables/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/07/china-energy-crisis-ele... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59059093 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59059093 https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/economy/china-manufacturing-pmi-covid-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/economy/china-manufacturing-p... While the US has no shortage of its own problems, the image of a rising China is not quite an accurate one. Just like the Japanese in the run-up to WW2, China's growing political and military aggression in the region, which not only targets Taiwan but other countries like Japan, the Philippines, India and Australia, is a sign of China's problems, not its strength. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-united-states/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-unite... > The outcome will mirror what happened when the all-conquering Wehrmacht took on a Soviet Union that was twice its size in population and had far greater manufacturing capacity. This is the strangest part of your comment. The US isn't seeking conflict with China, and the US is not trying to invade China or any other country. The US is simply pushing back against Chinese aggression and flagrant violations of international law. It has mutual defense treaties with a number of countries in the region (Japan, Philippines, South Korea) and has a huge economic interest in ensuring that freedom of navigation continues in international waters that are home to some of the world's most important shipping lanes. The "self-deluded" US doesn't have "wolf warriors"[1], doesn't threaten on the daily peaceful, democratic neighbors with violent "reunification", isn't claiming vast international waters and the territory of other countries (as determined by international courts) as its own, doesn't respond to military partnerships between other countries with promises to punish them with "no mercy" and make sure their soldiers are the first to die[2], and so on. If there's a war between China and the US it will be started by China. And it will almost certainly become a war between China and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, etc. because other countries in the region know what's at stake if the CCP is allowed to take over the Eastern hemisphere. China has fewer allies than even the Nazis. It is increasingly isolated and appears to recognize that it screwed the pooch[3] in terms of its global image. Its overlevered, house of cards economy is showing major cracks[4] as it approaches a demographic cliff caused in large part by one-child. So yeah, the US isn't all-powerful. But don't delude yourself into believing that China is more powerful. If China was as powerful as some people appear to believe, it wouldn't be acting the way it is. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-chinas-wolf-warrior-diplomats-use-and-abuse-twitter/ https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-chinas-wolf-warrior... [2] https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-09-16/china-fires-back-at-aukus-alliance-with-violent-rhetoric-australian-troops-would-be-the-first-to-die https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-09-16... [3] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi-jinping-wants-isolated-china-make-friends-and-win-over https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi... [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/evergrande-china-us/620360/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/ev...
- scarmig 5y ago
  Your comment is a useful corrective to the idea that China is certain to win a conflict over Taiwan. Or even that it is more likely than not to: if a victory were seen as probable, the CCP would have initiated a conflict yesterday. But I think your point of view goes a bit too far in the other direction and is too sanguine for the US. China is today, by PPP, the largest economy in the world, with the US coming in second. In 1940, the US was first, with Japan coming in seventh between India and France. It's true that contemporary China faces energy problems analogous to Showa-era Japan, but Japan's were much more severe. China has enough domestic crude production and the ability to import it from Kazakhstan and Russia to fuel its military indefinitely (albeit at significant domestic pain), while Japan had almost literally zero domestic production. > The US isn't seeking conflict with China, and the US is not trying to invade China or any other country. The US is simply pushing back against Chinese aggression and flagrant violations of international law. It has mutual defense treaties with a number of countries in the region (Japan, Philippines, South Korea) and has a huge economic interest in ensuring that freedom of navigation continues in international waters that are home to some of the world's most important shipping lanes. This is a weird part of your comment. It's unlikely that China would attack US warships in (what it sees as) its territorial waters out of nowhere. The more likely way a conflict would develop is it initiating some kind of aggression against Taiwan, which the US would respond to by shutting down that exact freedom of navigation in international waters in an attempt to starve China and its economy. As US warships enforced an embargo via threat, force, and even sinking Chinese and neutral civilian shipping, China would use that as justification for attacking US warships. > And it will almost certainly become a war between China and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, etc. because other countries in the region know what's at stake if the CCP is allowed to take over the Eastern hemisphere. Of course all those countries would prefer a constrained China. But, if the US isolates China's economy by an ocean embargo, it's effectively started a massive depression in all those countries simultaneously. They all have some reservoir of goodwill for the USA, but how long will their elected governments be able to tolerate double digit unemployment for the sake of an island they don't even recognize as a real country? The points about China being more isolated on the world stage than the US and having severe demographic issues are accurate.
  - 5y ago
gota 5y ago
I understand this doesn't adress the core of your statement (that the US is no longer "number one" and leaders need to ack that) but - Isn't the prevailing view that nuclear arsenals have made number-of-soldiers largely irrelevant? I've been told that actual war between powers now means catastrophic nuclear blasts both ways
- simonblack 5y ago
  If it gets to a nuclear exchange, the US will really go down in flames. (As will everybody.) So I don't believe that nukes will be used. Just as poison-gas wasn't used in WW2. That means we need to look at what happens in a non-nuclear conventional war. Once again, that comes back ultimately to "God is on the side of the big battalions", as Rommel is supposed to have said. That means the nations with the most men, and the most weapons.
  - FjolsvithAase 5y ago
    The current war (WWIV) is being fought on several fronts: cyber, economic, bioweapon. WW3 was the economic struggle that Reagan used to take down the Soviet Union. Listen to Clif High's explanation of WWIV: https://www.bitchute.com/video/WU3218W2qULL/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/WU3218W2qULL/ and https://www.bitchute.com/video/6UoprWnLdauS/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/6UoprWnLdauS/ When the SOC releases information later this week, they achieve the Strategic Moral victory over the enemy, and flip the loyalty of Humanity. This will achieve a fairly bloodless victory for WWIV.
    - anakaine 5y ago
      An authoritative source these links are not.
      - FjolsvithAase 5y ago
        Groupthink is dangerous. Learning to evaluate information for its veracity is much better than relying on others to be your authority for it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

powerapple 5y ago

US' GDP per capital is more than 6x than China's GDP per capital. China has a bigger population, and when China's GDP is the same as US, its per capital GDP will still be 1/4 or 1/5 of US. Even it loses the first seat as a country, its people are still better off than others.

simonblack 5y ago
"Better off" is no consolation when your country is being rolled over by a more powerful adversary. The British were richer than the Germans in 1940. That didn't prevent Dunkirk. The Americans and British were richer than the Japanese in 1941. That didn't prevent Pearl Harbor, Manila, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

> But, being so self-deluded, the US will take on an adversary that has not only 4 times the number of military-age men but also has a far greater manufacturing capacity. The number of military-age men is irrelevant in modern warfare and the type of conflict that the US and China would be engaged in. As for greater manufacturing capacity, the Japanese had excellent manufacturing capacity too. And just like Japan, China has major energy problems that will make it hugely vulnerable if there's a military conflict. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/07/china-energy-crisis-electricity-coal-pricing-renewables/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/07/china-energy-crisis-ele... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59059093 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59059093 https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/economy/china-manufacturing-pmi-covid-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/economy/china-manufacturing-p... While the US has no shortage of its own problems, the image of a rising China is not quite an accurate one. Just like the Japanese in the run-up to WW2, China's growing political and military aggression in the region, which not only targets Taiwan but other countries like Japan, the Philippines, India and Australia, is a sign of China's problems, not its strength. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-united-states/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/24/china-great-power-unite... > The outcome will mirror what happened when the all-conquering Wehrmacht took on a Soviet Union that was twice its size in population and had far greater manufacturing capacity. This is the strangest part of your comment. The US isn't seeking conflict with China, and the US is not trying to invade China or any other country. The US is simply pushing back against Chinese aggression and flagrant violations of international law. It has mutual defense treaties with a number of countries in the region (Japan, Philippines, South Korea) and has a huge economic interest in ensuring that freedom of navigation continues in international waters that are home to some of the world's most important shipping lanes. The "self-deluded" US doesn't have "wolf warriors"[1], doesn't threaten on the daily peaceful, democratic neighbors with violent "reunification", isn't claiming vast international waters and the territory of other countries (as determined by international courts) as its own, doesn't respond to military partnerships between other countries with promises to punish them with "no mercy" and make sure their soldiers are the first to die[2], and so on. If there's a war between China and the US it will be started by China. And it will almost certainly become a war between China and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, etc. because other countries in the region know what's at stake if the CCP is allowed to take over the Eastern hemisphere. China has fewer allies than even the Nazis. It is increasingly isolated and appears to recognize that it screwed the pooch[3] in terms of its global image. Its overlevered, house of cards economy is showing major cracks[4] as it approaches a demographic cliff caused in large part by one-child. So yeah, the US isn't all-powerful. But don't delude yourself into believing that China is more powerful. If China was as powerful as some people appear to believe, it wouldn't be acting the way it is. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-chinas-wolf-warrior-diplomats-use-and-abuse-twitter/ https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-chinas-wolf-warrior... [2] https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-09-16/china-fires-back-at-aukus-alliance-with-violent-rhetoric-australian-troops-would-be-the-first-to-die https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-09-16... [3] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi-jinping-wants-isolated-china-make-friends-and-win-over https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3135672/xi... [4] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/evergrande-china-us/620360/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/ev...

scarmig 5y ago
Your comment is a useful corrective to the idea that China is certain to win a conflict over Taiwan. Or even that it is more likely than not to: if a victory were seen as probable, the CCP would have initiated a conflict yesterday. But I think your point of view goes a bit too far in the other direction and is too sanguine for the US. China is today, by PPP, the largest economy in the world, with the US coming in second. In 1940, the US was first, with Japan coming in seventh between India and France. It's true that contemporary China faces energy problems analogous to Showa-era Japan, but Japan's were much more severe. China has enough domestic crude production and the ability to import it from Kazakhstan and Russia to fuel its military indefinitely (albeit at significant domestic pain), while Japan had almost literally zero domestic production. > The US isn't seeking conflict with China, and the US is not trying to invade China or any other country. The US is simply pushing back against Chinese aggression and flagrant violations of international law. It has mutual defense treaties with a number of countries in the region (Japan, Philippines, South Korea) and has a huge economic interest in ensuring that freedom of navigation continues in international waters that are home to some of the world's most important shipping lanes. This is a weird part of your comment. It's unlikely that China would attack US warships in (what it sees as) its territorial waters out of nowhere. The more likely way a conflict would develop is it initiating some kind of aggression against Taiwan, which the US would respond to by shutting down that exact freedom of navigation in international waters in an attempt to starve China and its economy. As US warships enforced an embargo via threat, force, and even sinking Chinese and neutral civilian shipping, China would use that as justification for attacking US warships. > And it will almost certainly become a war between China and the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippines, etc. because other countries in the region know what's at stake if the CCP is allowed to take over the Eastern hemisphere. Of course all those countries would prefer a constrained China. But, if the US isolates China's economy by an ocean embargo, it's effectively started a massive depression in all those countries simultaneously. They all have some reservoir of goodwill for the USA, but how long will their elected governments be able to tolerate double digit unemployment for the sake of an island they don't even recognize as a real country? The points about China being more isolated on the world stage than the US and having severe demographic issues are accurate.
- 5y ago

gota 5y ago

I understand this doesn't adress the core of your statement (that the US is no longer "number one" and leaders need to ack that) but - Isn't the prevailing view that nuclear arsenals have made number-of-soldiers largely irrelevant? I've been told that actual war between powers now means catastrophic nuclear blasts both ways

simonblack 5y ago
If it gets to a nuclear exchange, the US will really go down in flames. (As will everybody.) So I don't believe that nukes will be used. Just as poison-gas wasn't used in WW2. That means we need to look at what happens in a non-nuclear conventional war. Once again, that comes back ultimately to "God is on the side of the big battalions", as Rommel is supposed to have said. That means the nations with the most men, and the most weapons.
- FjolsvithAase 5y ago
  The current war (WWIV) is being fought on several fronts: cyber, economic, bioweapon. WW3 was the economic struggle that Reagan used to take down the Soviet Union. Listen to Clif High's explanation of WWIV: https://www.bitchute.com/video/WU3218W2qULL/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/WU3218W2qULL/ and https://www.bitchute.com/video/6UoprWnLdauS/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/6UoprWnLdauS/ When the SOC releases information later this week, they achieve the Strategic Moral victory over the enemy, and flip the loyalty of Humanity. This will achieve a fairly bloodless victory for WWIV.
  - anakaine 5y ago
    An authoritative source these links are not.
    - FjolsvithAase 5y ago
      Groupthink is dangerous. Learning to evaluate information for its veracity is much better than relying on others to be your authority for it.