Exactly this. The US can bluff all it wants about Japanese and South Korean nukes but at the end of the day: 1) South Koreans and Japanese are highly nationalistic & thus care far more about their own survival than America’s and won’t launch nukes at Washington’s command, 2) them having nukes actually decreases Washington’s leverage both in the region and around the world since “in a world where everyone is special, no one is.” And US hegemony is of course contingent on it being special and being able to threaten other countries without being threatened in return.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
This entire thing just strikes me as silly and not thought out, and I really don't get why the natsec scum keep bringing it up (and why people keep taking it seriously). A few observations:
-We can dismiss any possibility of the US allowing SK/Japan to develop their own arsenal, because that would cost it its role as security guarantor and therefore its empire in Asia (let alone possibly kick off a Chinese-assisted wave of proliferation to other countries which harms the US even more). So that leaves nuclear sharing.
-If the US once again deploys nukes to SK & Japan (kept strictly under its control with PAL mechanisms etc both for the above reason and because any unauthorized use would invite nuclear retaliation against itself), and a conventional war breaks out, China will simply rapidly target & destroy (conventionally) those weapons in the bases they are located in. When that happens, what is the US going to do, launch all of them immediately? Same goes for any Chinese or Russian deployments in Cuba, the US could simply call the bluff and systematically hunt down & destroy those nukes with conventional attacks.
So really, forward deploying nuclear weapons in regions where your opponent has an overwhelming conventional advantage is as good as useless unless you are for some reason willing to immediately end the world the moment a conventional conflict breaks out. To me it's analogous to the reason why you don't do things like permanently station your SSBNs 3km off an enemy's coast.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Technically, India placed 5th. Russia placed 3rd (185 points), but for political reasons the Russian contestants couldn't represent their country. It was still a great performance by the Indian team though
A) I'd guess. China is way more suitable to out lasting a nuclear apocalypse, because unlike US and similar to USSR, they have hardened electronics across large parts of the country against EMPs, they also have much better disaster relief capability, including bunkers.
Calling back to what I wrote in an earlier post, Russia has been bragging about it's 4 mil shell production, but as I demonstrated, that production rate is simply pathetic compared to China, it's akin to comparing ww2 Italy with USA (in the most literal sense of the word, USA produced more airplanes in ww2 than Italy produced arty rounds, and modern China is able to produce slightly less guided missiles than Russia can produce arty rounds in the same time).
You would rightfully expect that USA can blow Russian production rates out of the water, since they're still the 2nd largest economy, have dollar exorbitant privilege and so on. But for one reason or another, we have not seen US shown clear full spectrum production superiority against Russia. Sure, the production of aircraft in US is much better, but production in rocket powered projectiles and drones lag behind.
That means US maybe does not have the ability to build new nukes "like sausages" anymore, perhaps due to corruption or loss of knowhow. While we have always assumed US is able to do so, they may have fooled the world regarding their true capabilities.
Hence, they seek the farce of "nuclear limitation talks", to avoid being further burdened financially.
I honestly think this is an area China should concede to US, simply because there are better ways to sink American money than making them build dangerous nukes. If America can save money through the nuclear limitation policy, America will still find another way to waste the money. I don't trust them to be able to use the saved money responsibly for nation building, which is good news for China. I'd much rather see billions go into DEI, some oligarch's trust fund, or at least overpriced conventional weapons, than see it go into ICBMs.
Creativity on national scale is random, while time + education + resources are modifiers that improve your chances.
China today being a more creative region than for example EU or Africa or Canada is proven fact, you can simply see it because they can achieve feats the latter can't, they output more research, more products etc. And it is also a fact that for example the late Qing was less creative than the British empire.
These differences are owed to the difference in education, time efficiency, resource access and population sizes of each country. Nothing more flashy than that.
You cannot have too much creativity. Creavitity without skill isn't creativity at all, it's mania. And this does not benefit anyone in society.