Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

ansy1968 said:

@horse bro about Francis Fukuyama idea that the End of History had arrived meaning "Self Implosion or System Collapse"? Like the Roman's before the heavy weight of the empire The Center simply collapse leading us to The Dark Ages. You can see the comparison and it's eerily similar.

Click to expand...

But don't forgot a dark age for the west would still be multiple times better then the developed world. It would just means that they can't build a new cern particle accelerator or pioneer fusion reactors etc.

They will have brain drain because smart people want to go where their brain can actually add something it's will look like they will be stuck in the early 2000s domestic infrastructurally

BlackWindMnt said:

But don't forgot a dark age for the west would still be multiple times better then the developed world. It would just means that they can't build a new cern particle accelerator or pioneer fusion reactors etc.

They will have brain drain because smart people want to go where their brain can actually add something it's will look like they will be stuck in the early 2000s domestic infrastructurally

Click to expand...

@BlackWindMnt bro I'm afraid we're heading for a System Collapse and it will start with the devalue of the dollar or any US misadventure with China and Russia. The former a major manufacturing power house which the US depend so much, the latter an important energy supplier. So what are the US planners up to, a major Reset by destroying the major international institution they themselves build, or anarchy so that they can restart and rebuild again either choices may slide us to the dark ages (a nuclear war) if they're not careful.

at the end of the year, It's always fun to look back and review what happened, and reflect on which one of our predictions come true (or not) and why (not). It helps us to become better at predicting the future.

But it is even more fun to look back a few years and hear what people were saying. This one just shows how amazing Mearsheimer was/is.

LesAdieux said:

the geographic advantage is a myth of the past. China just need to build more SSN and SSBN, then send a dozen to the West Coast, a dozen to the east coast to patrol, that will be the end of the geographic advantage.

Click to expand...

I disagree that the geographical advantage that the US holds can be simply nullified by sending submarines near America all the way across the ocean.

It's still easier to send those from military bases located closer to the enemy and also for maintenance. What to do in case something, an accident happens to the Chinese submarines in the American coasts?

Submarines have their roles but they aren't everything and don't do everything, submarines alone are incomplete for a war. China isn't the only one with submarines. The US and China's other enemies too have and are increasing their submarines, all in addition to numerous military bases, troops and all kinds of weapons deployed in Asia Pacific. Relying on one type of weapon option is a disadvantage when your enemies have the full spectrum military. If the current borders are set permanently, they are in the upper hand because they are occupying/controlling larger part of the earth. I don't want to write all the way to refute "land size doesn't matter in this age" argument just yet, so I'll stop writing here.

horse said:

The even older Marxist theories, I am not a Marxist, (well, maybe I am, lol, I don't know) that Imperialism always leads to war.

The Americans are still kind of like an Imperial power, like the old days of the Age of Imperialism.

They do not go around invading everybody and set up traditional colonies like the British Empire. The Americans go around enforcing rules that puts America first.

It is not really Imperialism, but I have no idea how else we accurately describe it. Just say it is sort of like Imperialism. A new form of it, maybe, who knows.

------------------- -----------------

Now the Chinese, the CCP really are Marxist!

And they know Imperialism can only lead to war!

So the CCP was fully prepared to take on the Americans, or Imperialist, in every which way.

To say China is not doing anything, is simply incorrect. The Chinese are Marxist, the Marxist believe Imperialism only leads to war, and the Americans are Imperialist-like even though they deny it. CCP knows what is going on.

That is why this game is interesting.

It is a game of everything, haha!

Fun to watch.

We can get banned for getting too much into it, lol.

Hope people return, we need the laughs.

Hehe.

Click to expand...

"leading to war" itself isn't a bad thing. Wars are all throughout the human history. Those who are good at war and win the war rule and dominate and those lose the war are subjugated or fail to survive. Aggressive, hegemonic ones who like fighing get better at fighting by fighting more and pacifists who don't like fighinting and avoid fighting will suck at war. If you don't eat others, someone else will, and your enemy will eat you. That's the the way this physical world is. Everything is moved by physical force not moral highground. It's nothing to call imperialism.

bettydice said:

"leading to war" itself isn't a bad thing. Wars are all throughout the human history. Those who are good at war and win the war rule and dominate and those lose the war are subjugated or fail to survive. Aggressive, hegemonic ones who like fighing get better at fighting by fighting more and pacifists who don't like fighinting and avoid fighting will suck at war. If you don't eat others, someone else will, and your enemy will eat you. That's the the way this physical world is. Everything is moved by physical force not moral highground. It's nothing to call imperialism.

Click to expand...

Fighting begets more fighting, not necessarily more winnings.
Entire human history will stand a witness to that.
If US have been to wars more than any countries in the whole world, how did she manage to run away from Afghanistan with tails tucked between the legs as a recent example? Taliban have greater physical force, or a moral high ground to defend their motherland to death?

bettydice said:

"leading to war" itself isn't a bad thing. Wars are all throughout the human history. Those who are good at war and win the war rule and dominate and those lose the war are subjugated or fail to survive. Aggressive, hegemonic ones who like fighing get better at fighting by fighting more and pacifists who don't like fighinting and avoid fighting will suck at war. If you don't eat others, someone else will, and your enemy will eat you. That's the the way this physical world is. Everything is moved by physical force not moral highground. It's nothing to call imperialism.

Click to expand...

Imperialism was a historical period in world history. It is referred to as the Age of Imperialism.

During that era, there was a lot of wars, mainly between European powers fighting each other and the natives of distance lands the Europeans were trying to colonize.

The Age of Imperialism, is always connected to the colonization of the non-white world by the Europeans at the time, and the imperialism and colonization will always be associated with the racism inherent in those efforts.

Then the Imperialism finally lead to World War I, which was called the war to end all wars. This was the first industrial war in human history, and the results were devastating.

Some historians, after World War I, thought that was the end for Europe, in a way they were right. Europe never regained its former glory after World War I.

I believe that. European civilization was never the same after World War I.


If war is like a testing ground, like what you may be suggesting, well, sure, that is a good talking point, and can lead to vigorous debate.

Others might start associating that with the Age of Imperialism, colonization, racism, and all that historical baggage. Black Lives Matter! That history, for some, is something they would like to forget.

All this stuff still matters today. Christopher Columbus, was he a hero or a villain? The Americans hate each other for their views on that guy.

bettydice said:

I disagree that the geographical advantage that the US holds can be simply nullified by sending submarines near America all the way across the ocean.

It's still easier to send those from military bases located closer to the enemy and also for maintenance. What to do in case something, an accident happens to the Chinese submarines in the American coasts?

Submarines have their roles but they aren't everything and don't do everything, submarines alone are incomplete for a war. China isn't the only one with submarines. The US and China's other enemies too have and are increasing their submarines, all in addition to numerous military bases, troops and all kinds of weapons deployed in Asia Pacific. Relying on one type of weapon option is a disadvantage when your enemies have the full spectrum military. If the current borders are set permanently, they are in the upper hand because they are occupying/controlling larger part of the earth. I don't want to write all the way to refute "land size doesn't matter in this age" argument just yet, so I'll stop writing here.

Click to expand...

Good thing you stopped here.
The last time I checked, occupying/controlling larger part of the earth doesn't necessarily guarantee an upper hand in anything as a direct benefit, but only a guaranteed costs to maintain them and keep the hosts to fall in line. What happens when you have no more money to run all the shows going, like how US had to run away from Afghanistan to consolidate resources on Asia front?