11 ms·

> If RA theory and gameplay were mandatory in Congress the United States would be better positioned to both deter and compete with its global adversaries. Sure

by Jenk 3y ago

> If RA theory and gameplay were mandatory in Congress the United States would be better positioned to both deter and compete with its global adversaries. Surely these "global adversaries" are a myth? Isn't the US Military like 3 times the size of the 3 next largest militaries combined or something? There is no bogeyman except within, as far as the US Military goes. I'm not stupid - I know there are threats to the wellbeing of US society and citizens, but they aren't _existential_ threats to the US. Meanwhile the list of "de-throned and/or de-fanged by the US" nations is huge. I think the one critical lesson missing from the "RA Theory" is you need to continue to live, and there is more to life than just squashing your "enemies."

solardev 3y ago
> there is more to life than just squashing your "enemies" Thankfully, our other grand national pastime happens to be making new enemies! With a 3x military, we can afford to make 2x enemies and still come out ahead. "Cha-ching!" --Tanya
howmayiannoyyou 3y ago
> Isn't the US Military like 3 times the size of the 3 next largest militaries combined or something? The PLA is larger. The PLAN is larger. China is situated far closer to the likely contested areas. > _existential_ threats Your head is firmly embedded in the sand. If you care you need to do some reading. A shortcut to your learning looks something like this: The CCP's ascension and probable downward spiral is only reversible through control over resources contested by the West and regional players. The parties cannot cooperatively resolve the disputed issues because more resources are required than are available and no viable alternatives exist. War is probably coming, perhaps inevitable, unless one of the key players implodes domestically.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  > The PLA is larger. Pretty much only if you count number of active duty troops. USA outspends China significantly, and the number of tanks, warships, planes, etc. is vastly in favor of the USA, not even to mention nuclear warheads.
  - howmayiannoyyou 3y ago
    > USA outspends China US costs are far higher for almost everything, and the PLA obfuscates their spending. I wouldn't rely on this assumption.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  >unless one of the key players implodes domestically. If you listen to Zeihan, you'd be convinced china is on the verge of implosion due to it's demographic crash. I think he's a bit too deterministic, but it does lend credence to the 'now or never' idea that china is, in fact, serious about invading Taiwan by 2030 as things only get worse for them from there...

by Jenk 3y ago

solardev 3y ago

> there is more to life than just squashing your "enemies" Thankfully, our other grand national pastime happens to be making new enemies! With a 3x military, we can afford to make 2x enemies and still come out ahead. "Cha-ching!" --Tanya

howmayiannoyyou 3y ago

> Isn't the US Military like 3 times the size of the 3 next largest militaries combined or something? The PLA is larger. The PLAN is larger. China is situated far closer to the likely contested areas. > _existential_ threats Your head is firmly embedded in the sand. If you care you need to do some reading. A shortcut to your learning looks something like this: The CCP's ascension and probable downward spiral is only reversible through control over resources contested by the West and regional players. The parties cannot cooperatively resolve the disputed issues because more resources are required than are available and no viable alternatives exist. War is probably coming, perhaps inevitable, unless one of the key players implodes domestically.

JohnMakin 3y ago
> The PLA is larger. Pretty much only if you count number of active duty troops. USA outspends China significantly, and the number of tanks, warships, planes, etc. is vastly in favor of the USA, not even to mention nuclear warheads.
- howmayiannoyyou 3y ago
  > USA outspends China US costs are far higher for almost everything, and the PLA obfuscates their spending. I wouldn't rely on this assumption.
wing-_-nuts 3y ago
>unless one of the key players implodes domestically. If you listen to Zeihan, you'd be convinced china is on the verge of implosion due to it's demographic crash. I think he's a bit too deterministic, but it does lend credence to the 'now or never' idea that china is, in fact, serious about invading Taiwan by 2030 as things only get worse for them from there...