Miscellaneous News

quantumlight

quantumlight

Junior Member
Registered Member
voyager1 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Time for Putin to share with Xi what jokes Biden said to him in order to get Russia afraid of China

Top of the list is surely going to be the Chinese using aircraft carriers to invade Russia
Click to expand...

US probably pitched to Russia that Peak Oil means not only is it now global zero sum, but its an ever shrinking zero sum with the Pie actually getting smaller as the world also gets closer and more crowded....

Peak Oil, Resource Depletion, deminishing EROEI and the long term implications for the continued development of China...

Moore's Law is still relevant. The transistor density keeps increasing. The rate of growth isn't constant. It was higher a couple decades back but the rate wasn't always that fast either. Just look at the chart. The rate of density growth in the 1970s and 1980s was roughly similar to the past...
www.sinodefenceforum.com

Since China GDP PPP has surpassed America then in terms of needing to get rid of one of the "big eaters" (and US is not going to volunteer itself) the backroom deal/pitch was probably gets agree to knock out China (US and Russia both do surprise full scale nuclear attack on China) so then we can share the spoils and once China is out of the equation that will give the entire world another 3 decades of Peak Energy mitigation to try to tech out and solve the energy and climate issues with the US remaining as the global hegemon and Russia as the second in command....
 
N

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
Lol.

For those too lazy to read beyond the headlines, Malvinas is another name for Falkland Islands.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

If China helped the Argentinans recover the Malvinas, that would give the UK a heavy punch in the gut and would be more than sufficient revenge for all the lies the BBC has been telling about the Middle Kingdom.
 
bajingan

bajingan

Senior Member
quantumlight said:
US probably pitched to Russia that Peak Oil means not only is it now global zero sum, but its an ever shrinking zero sum with the Pie actually getting smaller as the world also gets closer and more crowded....

Peak Oil, Resource Depletion, deminishing EROEI and the long term implications for the continued development of China...

Moore's Law is still relevant. The transistor density keeps increasing. The rate of growth isn't constant. It was higher a couple decades back but the rate wasn't always that fast either. Just look at the chart. The rate of density growth in the 1970s and 1980s was roughly similar to the past...
www.sinodefenceforum.com

Since China GDP PPP has surpassed America then in terms of needing to get rid of one of the "big eaters" (and US is not going to volunteer itself) the backroom deal/pitch was probably gets agree to knock out China (US and Russia both do surprise full scale nuclear attack on China) so then we can share the spoils and once China is out of the equation that will give the entire world another 3 decades of Peak Energy mitigation to try to tech out and solve the energy and climate issues with the US remaining as the global hegemon and Russia as the second in command....
Click to expand...
The problem with that theory is that China nuclear deterrent is credible, so i don't think russia or even the us is willing to sacrifice tens of millions of their own citizens to pull off a sneak attack on China
Unless they want to do a great reset in which everyone goes back to stone age, that will solve peak oil problem
 
N

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
Maybe [the US's growing authoritarianism will] be a transition from Republic to Empire in the same way Rome did. That might actually solve a lot of the problems.
Click to expand...

Let's suppose the imperialist's dreams came true: (1) the US became an overt dictatorship, its citizens willing to die to make the eagle mightier; (2) the land remained a unified country; and (3) somehow the overt Empire captured all of North America, South America, and Europe.

Many dice would have to roll in the imperialists' favor, so this scenario would be quite unlikely. But let's assume this came to pass. The unified Empire would have abundant resources and a large productive population, so its future would seem promising.

Except that China would be growing all this time. And there's a fair chance that China would be several times stronger than even the Empire's greatest extent.

How would the Empire hold together under China's competition?

By force? Modern weapons make this far more difficult than in Roman times, as assassinations and insurgencies are easier now. The US is learning this lesson in Afghanistan. Even nuclear blackmail will probably not be effective, not with Russia's and China's deterrents. And the targets of American threats could always turn to the mighty Middle Kingdom.

By attractiveness of the US's political system? No. The "freedom and democracy" slogan would ring very hollow in an active dictatorship.

By strength of economy? Compared to what China will be? This seems the least likely of all.

So how would an overt and improbable US Empire hold together under China's unrelenting attempts woo away parts of it? I doubt it can.
 
Last edited:
quantumlight

quantumlight

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nutrient said:
Let's suppose the imperialist's dreams came true: (1) the US became an overt dictatorship, its citizens willing to die to make the eagle mightier; (2) the land remained a unified country; and (3) somehow the overt Empire captured all of North America, South America, and Europe.

Many dice would have to roll in the imperialists' favor, so this scenario would be quite unlikely. But let's assume this came to pass. The unified Empire would have abundant resources and a large productive population, so its future would seem promising.

Except that China would be growing all this time. And there's a fair chance that China would be several times stronger than even the Empire's greatest extent.

How would the Empire hold together under China's competition?

By force? Modern weapons make this far more difficult than in Roman times, as assassinations and insurgencies are easier now. The US is learning this lesson in Afghanistan. Even nuclear blackmail will probably not be effective, not with Russia's and China's deterrents. And the targets of American threats could always turn to the mighty Middle Kingdom.

By attractiveness of the US's political system? No. The "freedom and democracy" slogan would ring very hollow in an active dictatorship.

By strength of economy? Compared to what China will be? This seems the least likely of all.

So how would an overt and improbable US Empire hold together under China's unrelenting attempts woo away parts of it? I doubt it can.
Click to expand...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Strangelove

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A Chinese envoy on Thursday called for international efforts to put an end to colonialism and expounded China's position on the Malvinas Islands.

The question of the Malvinas Islands, also known as the Falklands, is essentially a legacy of colonialism, said Geng Shuang, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations (UN).

Colonialism has brought great suffering to the world and left an extremely disgraceful page in human history. Today in the 21st century, long gone are the days when Western colonialists had free rein. However, in international relations, colonial thinking, power politics, and bullying, which share the origin with colonialism, are still manifested in various forms, seriously impacting the normal international order and severely undermining the sovereignty, security, and development rights of countries concerned, as well as their political, economic, and social stability, he said.

"The international community must remain highly vigilant about this," he told a session of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization.

This year marks the first year of the Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. The international community should continue to take necessary measures to uphold fairness and justice, ensure that all forms and manifestations of colonialism are genuinely put to an end and promote the decolonization process of the 17 UN non-self-governing territories, including the Malvinas Islands, said Geng.

Britain and other administering powers should earnestly fulfill their international obligations in accordance with relevant UN resolutions and protect the legitimate rights of the people of the non-self-governing territories, he said.

China's position on the question of the Malvinas Islands has been consistent. It firmly supports Argentina's sovereignty claim on the Malvinas Islands, he said. "China has always maintained that territorial disputes between countries should be resolved through peaceful negotiations in line with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. We hope Britain will actively respond to Argentina's request, start dialogue and negotiations as soon as possible with a view to finding a peaceful, just and lasting solution in accordance with relevant UN resolutions."

Argentina and Britain have been at odds over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands for decades, and their dispute led to a brief war in 1982. The Malvinas, or the Falklands as the British call it, is controlled by Britain, but Argentina maintains they are part of its territory.
 
MarKoz81

MarKoz81

Junior Member
Registered Member
Strangelove said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A Chinese envoy on Thursday called for international efforts to put an end to colonialism and expounded China's position on the Malvinas Islands.

The question of the Malvinas Islands, also known as the Falklands, is essentially a legacy of colonialism, said Geng Shuang, China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations (UN).

Colonialism has brought great suffering to the world and left an extremely disgraceful page in human history. Today in the 21st century, long gone are the days when Western colonialists had free rein. However, in international relations, colonial thinking, power politics, and bullying, which share the origin with colonialism, are still manifested in various forms, seriously impacting the normal international order and severely undermining the sovereignty, security, and development rights of countries concerned, as well as their political, economic, and social stability, he said.

"The international community must remain highly vigilant about this," he told a session of the UN Special Committee on Decolonization.

This year marks the first year of the Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. The international community should continue to take necessary measures to uphold fairness and justice, ensure that all forms and manifestations of colonialism are genuinely put to an end and promote the decolonization process of the 17 UN non-self-governing territories, including the Malvinas Islands, said Geng.

Britain and other administering powers should earnestly fulfill their international obligations in accordance with relevant UN resolutions and protect the legitimate rights of the people of the non-self-governing territories, he said.

China's position on the question of the Malvinas Islands has been consistent. It firmly supports Argentina's sovereignty claim on the Malvinas Islands, he said. "China has always maintained that territorial disputes between countries should be resolved through peaceful negotiations in line with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. We hope Britain will actively respond to Argentina's request, start dialogue and negotiations as soon as possible with a view to finding a peaceful, just and lasting solution in accordance with relevant UN resolutions."

Argentina and Britain have been at odds over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands for decades, and their dispute led to a brief war in 1982. The Malvinas, or the Falklands as the British call it, is controlled by Britain, but Argentina maintains they are part of its territory.
Click to expand...

I don't know the history of Chinese position on the dispute but the "decolonization" of Falklands is an absurd notion. Argentine claim is based on a Spanish colonial claim and Argentina is a colonial state itself - it is the Spanish equivalent of the United States. The only population that is "native" to the Falklands is British.

But in politics words are wind and intention is what drives the sword.

I think China signalling its support to Argentina with regards to the Falkland Islands dispute is really signalling an offer of support with regards to Antarctica. The Falklands are irrelevant but Antarctica isn't.

The Antarctic treaty:

antarctic treaty.jpg

China can't make a claim since it hasn't reserved its right to do so. It wants to leverage Argentina because Argentina has a traditional and extensive claim and a very weak position politically and militarily.

The claims and bases in Antarctica:

antarctica_1.jpg

The reason why the dispute with Britain is brought into the picture is because Argentine and British claims to the Antarctic overlap. Argentine claim also partly overlaps with Chilean claim and Brazil is also claiming territory within the Argentine claim. Brazil and Chile are working with the US and Britain so it leaves Argentina in a weakened position because both Washington and London can leverage Chile and Brazil to put pressure on Argentina and strategically position themselves as "peacekeepers".

Argentina has to look for support if it wants to stay in the game. There are only two allies possible - Russia and China.

Russia despite having traditional presence and a reserved right to make a claim has no navy that can project power. Russia has made a tally of its resources and decided to focus on the Arctic where it has tremendous geographic advantage.

This leaves China as the only viable counter. Not only does China want to be part of the settlement in the Antarctic but it has the navy that is necessary to reinforce its position. From this perspective Beijing's representative just demonstrated that China won't care about Western rationalizations because it has its own narrative in order. It might even be a deliberate exaggeration to signal to other states that China is willing to go the extra mile in baseless rhetoric if you are willing to work together against common enemy.
After all if a few "decolonizations" happened on the way from China to Argentine Antarctic territory it would be a net gain.

China might also be signalling that if Argentina chooses Chinese planes and other forms cooperation - both military and economic - then things which seemed impossible might not be so impossible in the future.

There's one more aspect.

Britain is just making a show of strength by sending its navy to West Pacific even though it has no strategic interest there beyond post-colonial arrangements in places like Brunei.

800px-United_Kingdom_(+overseas_territories)_in_the_World_(+Antarctica_claims).svg.png

In South Atlantic however they have interest and at the same time very under-developed infrastructure that hampers their power projection in case of a crisis. The Falklands are the best staging ground for any long term operation. If you somehow manage to remove it from the equation British power projection suffers because they have to relocate to South Georgia or Tristan da Cuhna.

And all of that can be achieved through providing Argentina with sufficient means to challenge Britain. Britain doesn't have the resources to deal with Argentina and project power into the Pacific. In fact they are in much weaker position now than they were during the Falkland War so just the threat of Argentine buildup could be a factor. The Royal Navy today is really a single carrier group with a few ships free for patrol duties. It can only be in one place at once.

The only problem is that Argentina is in complete shambles and Washington is growing malicious toward anyone working with China.

If my analysis is correct then this ridiculous argument is indeed a very good strategic play. We'll see how it plays in Buenos Aires because London will do whatever Washington tells them to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top