Miscellaneous News

[Rank Amateur]

Interesting. Coincidentally, I had just watched Scott Ritter and Carl Zha arguing passionately over the US vs China war fighting mindset. In that argument Carl Zha also brought up this Mao quote that men, not atom bombs wins wars.

What started this argument was that Carl Zha dismissed the power and relevance of the US today too casually. Ritter, while not a fan of the current US government today is still a boomer, and that triggered him. He ranted about USA #1 for awhile, and after calming down, he said that he is warning people around the world to not push the US into a corner too much too soon. Because there are too many nutjobs like Lindsey Graham and Trump in the halls of power, and they might just go crazy and throw nukes around. But Carl Zha doubts the US nuke threat, called it a bluff, and used that Mao quote too casually. Both Ritter and Zha have flaws in their argument. Ritter thinks that China is getting cocky and is out to get America now. Not true at all. He still doesn't understand China enough. While Zha just dismisses the US threat of war with China too casually. The Americans may be cowards, but their military is still very formidable against China. Now is not the time to dismiss them as a threat. Never underestimate your adversary. Don't make the same big mistake as the Qing Dynasty.

Mao was not wrong, but sometimes people do throw his quotes around too casually. It is true that men win wars, not nukes, but just don't dismiss the nuke threat too easily. Nukes are still controlled by men. The US didn't nuke China during the Mao era because it was just not worth it. Today, it's a different US and China. There are no more WW2 veterans in charge in the US. And China is poised to overtake the US economy and overturn over 200 years of Anglo-European domination of the world. For today, it might just be worth it to nuke China out, if the Western world have already accepted that they are doomed. Ritter was arguing to not dismiss that threat too casually. Because there are preemptive nuclear strike plans against Russia and China and the US is getting more desperate. He mentioned that the US neocons and haters still think that they have a massive warhead count advantage over China. They wet dream a surprise preemptive first strike on China because they think that the US might just fare better in a post nuclear exchange with China. Nobody survives nuclear war. But there are too many idiots in America who think they can.

I have brought up this same neocon viewpoint here about 4-years ago, in the middle of the Covid pandemic. I had argued with some people about the need for China to actually build a credible nuclear deterrence against the US. What China had in 2020 was enough to deter India, but it was still far from enough to deter the US. It still is today. Trump and his MAGA Republicans would sacrifice millions of Americans to Covid, so that they could show the middle finger to China's success at containing Covid. So why should they not do it with nuclear war if they were desperate enough? China should not gamble on the assumption that the leaders in the US are still reasonable people. Minimal deterrence is no longer enough. China has to attempt to achieve parity with the US nuclear arsenal. Only then, could China's deterrence be taken seriously by the American neocons. The good news is that the Chinese leadership is doing exactly that, by expanding its arsenal to 1000 warheads first. I personally believe that they'll go further after that, until they match with the US.

I still remember arguing with one idiot who argued vehemently that China's nuclear arsenal is a just waste of money. That China should actually spend that money on more economic development. If China would not have nukes at all, that'll better. This idealistic idiot is either high on something, or he is actually a hanjian pretending to be concerned for China.

"China should not gamble on the assumption that the leaders in the US are still reasonable people."

The above statement should be translated into Chinese and engraved on a giant plaque at Zhongnanhai.

 

[Chevalier]

As for its people, the quality is subpar. The entire economy is based on scam. The only scary part is the delusional boomers in charge. Those are too delusional to placate, too insane to not fight to death. But those will not be living for long. I give it 10 years for those guys to die off, or at least dead to the point of having no influence anymore.

It’s not just boomers, it also the successive Millenials who have memories of US as number 1 and believe a race war with China will unite the nation eg Tom cotton, the wolverines in the anglosphere, the neckbeards of resist and 4chan. Those aren’t boomers posting, but millennial and gen X if not gen Z.

Interesting. Coincidentally, I had just watched Scott Ritter and Carl Zha arguing passionately over the US vs China war fighting mindset. In that argument Carl Zha also brought up this Mao quote that men, not atom bombs wins wars.

What started this argument was that Carl Zha dismissed the power and relevance of the US today too casually. Ritter, while not a fan of the current US government today is still a boomer, and that triggered him. He ranted about USA #1 for awhile, and after calming down, he said that he is warning people around the world to not push the US into a corner too much too soon. Because there are too many nutjobs like Lindsey Graham and Trump in the halls of power, and they might just go crazy and throw nukes around. But Carl Zha doubts the US nuke threat, called it a bluff, and used that Mao quote too casually. Both Ritter and Zha have flaws in their argument. Ritter thinks that China is getting cocky and is out to get America now. Not true at all. He still doesn't understand China enough. While Zha just dismisses the US threat of war with China too casually. The Americans may be cowards, but their military is still very formidable against China. Now is not the time to dismiss them as a threat. Never underestimate your adversary. Don't make the same big mistake as the Qing Dynasty.

Mao was not wrong, but sometimes people do throw his quotes around too casually. It is true that men win wars, not nukes, but just don't dismiss the nuke threat too easily. Nukes are still controlled by men. The US didn't nuke China during the Mao era because it was just not worth it. Today, it's a different US and China. There are no more WW2 veterans in charge in the US. And China is poised to overtake the US economy and overturn over 200 years of Anglo-European domination of the world. For today, it might just be worth it to nuke China out, if the Western world have already accepted that they are doomed. Ritter was arguing to not dismiss that threat too casually. Because there are preemptive nuclear strike plans against Russia and China and the US is getting more desperate. He mentioned that the US neocons and haters still think that they have a massive warhead count advantage over China. They wet dream a surprise preemptive first strike on China because they think that the US might just fare better in a post nuclear exchange with China. Nobody survives nuclear war. But there are too many idiots in America who think they can.

I have brought up this same neocon viewpoint here about 4-years ago, in the middle of the Covid pandemic. I had argued with some people about the need for China to actually build a credible nuclear deterrence against the US. What China had in 2020 was enough to deter India, but it was still far from enough to deter the US. It still is today. Trump and his MAGA Republicans would sacrifice millions of Americans to Covid, so that they could show the middle finger to China's success at containing Covid. So why should they not do it with nuclear war if they were desperate enough? China should not gamble on the assumption that the leaders in the US are still reasonable people. Minimal deterrence is no longer enough. China has to attempt to achieve parity with the US nuclear arsenal. Only then, could China's deterrence be taken seriously by the American neocons. The good news is that the Chinese leadership is doing exactly that, by expanding its arsenal to 1000 warheads first. I personally believe that they'll go further after that, until they match with the US.

I still remember arguing with one idiot who argued vehemently that China's nuclear arsenal is a just waste of money. That China should actually spend that money on more economic development. If China would not have nukes at all, that'll better. This idealistic idiot is either high on something, or he is actually a hanjian pretending to be concerned for China.

Ritter is an America russophile so like some Russians, he may have preferred russia and America uniting against China, as was the boomer Tom Clancy dream of the 90s. He may well have been triggered as some boomers do, at “uppity asians” being more confident when most boomers are used to servile Asian emigres. Not saying his analysis is wrong, some of his Russia analysis and Ukraine analysis is spot on but there is a bias against China that one should be aware.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

World do not end when nukes hit. Many will die. The consequences are severe. But end of the day, the war continues. Therefore having a plan to come out on top is important. Ultimately, American nukes are not owned by China, so if they want to use it regardless of consequences, there better be a good answer from China.

One day, the naval supremacy will be so lopsided that US subs are tracked right out of the base. This is not far fetched given the lopsided industrial difference between the two. It is one economic collapse and one arm race away from being viable.

The oceans are far larger than you imagine, and the US has something known as the East Coast. There are also things known as fallout and nuclear winter. The US doesn't have the balls to attack North Korea, so US leaders will need to become a lot more psychotic/suicidal before even considering initiating nuclear exchange with China or Russia. The best strategy is to boost deterrence to the levels where they could be no doubt that the US would cease to exist if it were to initial a nuclear exchange while at the same time attempting to minimize the risks that the US would devolve to a state where it becomes insane enough to consider the possibility.

 

[tokenanalyst]

World do not end when nukes hit.

Depends, it will feel like it. Civilization may collapse after.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

What is this debate? Civilization collapse? US and China nuking Each other?

This is a pointless debate with no basis in actual nature of either countries.

When has US even lost even a million people in a war? Never ever.

Neither US nor its parent anglo saxon United Kingdom has ever fought an existential war where the lives of their civillians were really at stake. Now u guys are debating about US actually fighting a war in such a desperate manner that hundreds of million of US citizens will die?

That's just BS. US will never fight such a war. They will give up and leave just like they always do. This is their true nature. US and UK are basically passive aggressive countries. They escalate with the hope that other side backs down due to overwhelming strength. When that strength advantage does not exist. They simply do not even fight. They give up.

The more powerful China gets, the more likely US will never fight China, most certainly not in China's own backyard. They will just keep posturing and then eventually they will give up just like they gave in so many places. dominance of the pacific is optional for them, they don't need it. Its certainly boosts their ego but that's it. They will leave the west Pacific just like the European powers left Latin America after a few hits.

 

[tokenanalyst]

 

[tokenanalyst]

What is this debate? Civilization collapse? US and China nuking Each other?

This is a pointless debate with no basis in actual nature of either countries.

When has US even lost even a million people in a war? Never ever.

Neither US nor its parent anglo saxon United Kingdom has ever fought an existential war where the lives of their civillians were really at stake. Now u guys are debating about US actually fighting a war in such a desperate manner that hundreds of million of US citizens will die?

That's just BS. US will never fight such a war. They will give up and leave just like they always do. This is their true nature. US and UK are basically passive aggressive countries. They escalate with the hope that other side backs down due to overwhelming strength. When that strength advantage does not exist. They simply do not even fight. They give up.

The more powerful China gets, the more likely US will never fight China, most certainly not in China's own backyard. They will just keep posturing and then eventually they will give up just like they gave in so many places. dominance of the pacific is optional for them, they don't need it. Its certainly boosts their ego but that's it. They will leave the west Pacific just like the European powers left Latin America after a few hits.

You are correct, powers want nuclear weapons to never use them and that is why I think China want more nukes because in their eyes looks like that D.C. stooges are not getting that memo the China is a nuclear power, D.C stooges talk about war with like if they are going to war with Iraq, that low level of respect towards what would be a major power war is making the higher powers in Beijing nervous, the way they talk about war with China is something that the Russians don't get.
So China is likely to increase their warhead count and their delivery diversity until the stooges on D.C. understand that they are dealing nuclear power so that way they don't have to use them and negotiate instead.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

You are correct, powers want nuclear weapons to never use them and that is why I think China want more nukes because in their eyes looks like that D.C. stooges are not getting that memo the China is a nuclear power, D.C stooges talk about war with like if they are going to war with Iraq, that low level of respect towards what would be a major power war is making the higher powers in Beijing nervous, the way they talk about war with China is something that the Russians don't get.
So China is likely to increase their warhead count and their delivery diversity until the stooges on D.C. understand that they are dealing nuclear power so that way they don't have to use them and negotiate instead.

China has enough production capacity to produce 10 times more nukes and missiles than US. Nukes are also not that expensive to produce either. China has kept its nuke count low to "hide and bide". Even their current nuke plans of 1500 nukes are really low compared to what they can actually produce. They are still hiding and biding, otherwise they won't be spending 1.5% of GDP on the military when literally every adversary in their neighbourhood is ramping up spending to around 3%.

When China gets serious about military power, it will shock the world at the scale and pace of arms production.

 

[siegecrossbow]

LMFAO they are demanding bobs and vagene, literally. How dare they look down upon the supapowa now?

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/comments/1czk0vr

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

"China should not gamble on the assumption that the leaders in the US are still reasonable people."

The above statement should be translated into Chinese and engraved on a giant plaque at Zhongnanhai.

Reasonable? Extremely rarely. But rational? Most of the time. I'm going to refrain from inserting some cliche Sun Tzu quotes here, but you never want to underestimate your adversary. When formulating grand strategy, you should always assume that your adversary is going to act rationally in the pursuit of their interests.

When assessing US behavior, I think people need to ignore what Washington says and focus solely on what Washington does. The narrative pushed by US dominated media will never reveal the true reasons or intent behind US actions, as information warfare is just another tool in Washington's toolbox. The official narrative is primarily intended for consumption by the masses within the US and vassal states first and foremost, and secondly to extend influence in neutral states and sow discontent in adversarial states. Washington is run by (and I'm not talking about the average Congressmen and other participants in the theatrics) highly intelligent and rational people who are definitely not drinking their own Kool-Aid.

The US has a tendency to engage in projection, and I believe a fairly accurate, "tell" for the true intent of Washington is to take a look at what the US tends to project on China.

1) "The CPC prioritizes the survival of it's regime and it's monopoly on power rather than the interests of the Chinese people." -> "Our political elites prioritize their own survival and their monopoly on power rather than the interests of the American people."

2) "China engages in mercantilism and doesn't play by the rules of the rules-based international trading order." -> "We plan to revert to mercantilism and protectionism and abandon free trade since it no longer serves our interests to do so."

3) "China practices neo-colonialism and exploitation of the resources of developing nations through debt-trap diplomacy and dealing with corrupt dictators that regularly engage in human rights abuses." -> "We intend to monopolize the practice of neo-colonialism through our use of the IMF and military backing of corrupt dictators that will suppress dissent for us."

4) "China's naval buildup and aggressive actions in the SCS belies China's intentions to dominate trade and the nations of the regions and is a challenge to our belief of Freedom of Navigation." -> "We intend to maintain control over maritime trade and critical sea lanes throughout the world."

5) "China's window of opportunity of forced reunification is running out and will invade Taiwan within the next decade." -> "Our window of opportunity for maintaining our hegemony is running out and we intend to provoke a conflict in the Taiwan Strait within the next decade."

6) "China uses its economic clout to further it's political goals through economic coercion." -> "Sanctions and control of the global financial system are our means to achieve our political goals and coerce nations to act in our interests."

All of the US's actions should be viewed in the context of great power competition between the incumbent dominant world power and the rising world power. Of course, the US may make miscalculations here and there and conflicts of interest may arise within the different factions (ie the Israel lobby) that comprise Washington's political elite. Ultimately, discussions on China's grand strategy for navigating this great power competition will be far more productive if we can ignore the narrative pushed by the Western liberal media, detach ourselves emotionally, and view Washington as a rational actor in pursuit of maximizing its own interests.