China won, USA lost

[helmut]

Regarding China, it's not even a case of right or wrong.

China has violated international law, and commits a horrible crime (ethnocide). This is a question of right or wrong.

Same with my family.
I am going to be loyal to my family ahead of anyone outside
my family.

Even if a member of your family kills another person?

China has plenty of practice with what Chuna weak does.

China will still be strong when it gives real cultural autonomy to Tibet or Xinqiang.

In our days, China is by no means weak, but it is a threat to other countries. Take the "new silk road" project: You will find many parallels to the early colonialism which was founded on trade relation and laid the basis for British East India or Netherlands East India (now Indonesia). In Africa, the white colonialists also came with fighting against evil (e.g. slave trade), but exploited the situation to their own benefit - as China does now in Africa. China has a neo-colonialist agenda, it wants to do with others what was done to it.

Nobody has the moral, ethical high ground in their country's
history or role in the world.

In still think it is a good think to stand for the self-determination of the people. In former days, this meant to stand on the side of China, but now that means to stand against China.

 

[helmut]

If China tries to take Taiwan, the United States will destroy China.

I doubt. In the 1980s the world got shocked by the discovery that the United States would not survive a preemptive Soviet nuclear attack against China (because of the "nuclear winter"). A nuclear strike against China by the USA is no better, especially if China can drop some bombs in America ...

A non-nuclear war will probably be won by China. Or may end in a draw, or "deadlock" without a winner.

China, as the USA, is too big to be punished. The USA protect their soldiers against the international court of justice, so they can get away after committing war crimes. And China can break the treaty about Hong Kong. And so on ...

 

[Landon Caeli]

I doubt. In the 1980s the world got shocked by the discovery that the United States would not survive a preemptive Soviet nuclear attack against China (because of the "nuclear winter"). A nuclear strike against China by the USA is no better, especially if China can drop some bombs in America ...

A non-nuclear war will probably be won by China. Or may end in a draw, or "deadlock" without a winner.

China, as the USA, is too big to be punished. The USA protect their soldiers against the international court of justice, so they can get away after committing war crimes. And China can break the treaty about Hong Kong. And so on ...

We have aircraft carriers that fly now... They release thousands of drones, that are operated remotely, and these drones can both surveil and blow up.

...Imagine hitting a bee's nest, with thousands of bees scattering, swarming in every direction.

 

[Landon Caeli]

...We call them "Gremlins".

 

[helmut]

We have aircraft carriers that fly now... They release thousands of drones, that are operated remotely, and these drones can both surveil and blow up.

China has drones, too. And if US satellites are attacked, remote control of drones is restricted to areas where the drones are "in sight" (no mountain or other barrier between sender and drone).

The US may have the first strike, but this is not the final victory.

And can you perceive that what you write is close to a fulfillment of Rev 9,1-12. The next picture in that chapter: An Army of 200,000,000 - the same number as Mao boasted as the capacity of the Chinese army capacity. Coincidence? At least I hope so ...

EDIT: typo correction

 

[Landon Caeli]

China has drones, too. And if US satellites are atacked, remote control of drones is restricted to areas where the drones are "in sight" (no mountain or other barrier between sender and drone).

...But our satellites are in lower Orbit. Blowing things up in lower Orbit would anger the whole international community of nations.

 

[helmut]

...But our satellites are in lower Orbit. Blowing things up in lower Orbit would anger the whole international community of nations.

Lower orbit means that hey can be brought down while they fly over China. What could this do to the "international community of nations"? Who would be angered if China defends itself from an US attack?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Lower orbit means that hey can be brought down while they fly over China. What could this do to the "international community of nations"? Who would be angered if China defends itself from an US attack?

If you blow things up in lower Orbit, it causes dangerous shrapnel at high speeds, making all future space station visits that much more dangerous. It also puts all other satellites at risk from debris, traveling at hundreds, or thousands of miles per hour, trapped in Orbit forever.

 

[helmut]

If you blow things up in lower Orbit, it causes dangerous shrapnel at high speeds, making all future space station visits that much more dangerous. It also puts all other satellites at risk from debris, traveling at hundreds, or thousands of miles per hour, trapped in Orbit forever.

Not forever. The outer atmosphere "slows down" objects in lower orbit. The lower the orbit, and the smaller (less mass) the object, the sooner it will fall down to earth and melt or even vaporize (larger objects may reach the ground before that).

I put "slows down" in quotation marks, because due to physical laws an object that is "braked" will get into a lower orbit with a higher speed - a paradox which makes "rendezvous" operations in orbit a difficult task that need special training of astronauts.

There is plenty of debris already in orbit, some destroyed satellites will rise the risk, but only slightly. And the lower the orbit, the sooner this debris will disappear. Do you remember skylab? It was in a lower orbit, and sometimes it was lifted up again, and in the end when it was abandoned, it was not lifted up any more, got destroyed in the atmosphere, and the debris fell into the sea.

In sum: The effect, though not comfortable at all, will not be as bad as you wrote. And how many parts of the international community will blame China, and how much will blame the USA, is an open question. It may depend on details how the conflict escalated ...

 

[Tom 1]

If China tries to take Taiwan, the United States will destroy China.

That's pure fantasy.

 

[Landon Caeli]

That's pure fantasy.

Well, they're training us not to hate Chinese Americans right now, I believe in preparation. Also, the US military has begun "War Games", not sure if you know what that means, but we're readying ourselves.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Not forever. The outer atmosphere "slows down" objects in lower orbit. The lower the orbit, and the smaller (less mass) the object, the sooner it will fall down to earth and melt or even vaporize (larger objects may reach the ground before that).

I put "slows down" in quotation marks, because due to physical laws an object that is "braked" will get into a lower orbit with a higher speed - a paradox which makes "rendezvous" operations in orbit a difficult task that need special training of astronauts.

There is plenty of debris already in orbit, some destroyed satellites will rise the risk, but only slightly. And the lower the orbit, the sooner this debris will disappear. Do you remember skylab? It was in a lower orbit, and sometimes it was lifted up again, and in the end when it was abandoned, it was not lifted up any more, got destroyed in the atmosphere, and the debris fell into the sea.

In sum: The effect, though not comfortable at all, will not be as bad as you wrote. And how many parts of the international community will blame China, and how much will blame the USA, is an open question. It may depend on details how the conflict escalated ...

It's really too bad Germany doesn't side with China. In fact, it would be a dream come true to knock them both out.

Now that's fantasy.

 

[Tom 1]

Well, they're training us not to hate Chinese Americans right now, I believe in preparation. Also, the US military has begun "War Games", not sure if you know what that means, but we're readying ourselves.

The size and regularity of war games varies over time, there’s nothing major enough happening at the moment to indicate preparation for a major conflict. The US certainly wouldn’t start a full blown military conflict with China over Taiwan. If China did break with it’s current laissez faire attitude towards Taiwan’s govt in a very aggressive manner, that could certainly lead to them being embroiled in a wider conflict eventually, but they have other fish to fry. Consolidating a hold over HK’s financial market and continuing to ramp up manufacturing, e-commerce and tech development on the mainland are bigger priorities.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The size and regularity of war games varies over time, there’s nothing major enough happening at the moment to indicate preparation for a major conflict. The US certainly wouldn’t start a full blown military conflict with China over Taiwan. If China did break with it’s current laissez faire attitude towards Taiwan’s govt in a very aggressive manner, that could certainly lead to them being embroiled in a wider conflict eventually, but they have other fish to fry. Consolidating a hold over HK’s financial market and continuing to ramp up manufacturing, e-commerce and tech development on the mainland are bigger priorities.

I don't think it's correct to assume that the US would never attack China. There are several ways China can provoke an attack.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't think it's correct to assume that the US would never attack China. There are several ways China can provoke an attack.

Who said never? No US govt is going to initiate a full-blown win/lose military conflict over Taiwan however. if China makes aggressive, end-game moves on Taiwan effectively acting to subsume it entirely as nothing more than an extension of the mainland, that would lead to some sabre-rattling, possibly an increased US Navy presence, sanctions, possibly some skirmishing and other measures, cyberattacks perhaps, but no way would it lead to a full US-China conflict in the old style. If the China and US ever do get into a full conflict of that sort it'll provoke a worldwide crisis that would be worse than the recent crises by a factor of, well, a lot.

With Russia and China pairing up to establish a moon base, there's always the possibility of conflict out in the solar system eventually but personally I think the days of world wars are done with and long guerrilla style conflicts involving economic or technological sabotage of various kinds are the new normal.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Who said never? No US govt is going to initiate a full-blown win/lose military conflict over Taiwan however. if China makes aggressive, end-game moves on Taiwan effectively acting to subsume it entirely as nothing more than an extension of the mainland, that would lead to some sabre-rattling, possibly an increased US Navy presence, sanctions, possibly some skirmishing and other measures, cyberattacks perhaps, but no way would it lead to a full US-China conflict in the old style. If the China and US ever do get into a full conflict of that sort it'll provoke a worldwide crisis that would be worse than the recent crises by a factor of, well, a lot.

With Russia and China pairing up to establish a moon base, there's always the possibility of conflict out in the solar system eventually but personally I think the days of world wars are done with and long guerrilla style conflicts involving economic or technological sabotage of various kinds are the new normal.

That seems far more realistic than nuclear war.

 

[helmut]

It's really too bad Germany doesn't side with China. In fact, it would be a dream come true to knock them both out.

This is your answer to a technical post on the possibilities of drone wars ...

I'm not the German government, I don't like the CCP and especially the persecution of Christians (which hardens in China since about 2012). But I'm realistic about what military means can do - and what not.

Overestimating military possibilities has got us into a desaster in Iraq, negligence of civil means to help the people has made Afghanistan into a failed state - the NATO only wants to get out of there somewhat "decently", the mission has failed. A war against China cannot be won - the perhaps best scenario is an outcome with both sides having lost. The worst is an atomic war so that only Jesus coming back could save the human race from extinction.

 

[Estrid]

China has violated international law, and commits a horrible crime (ethnocide). This is a question of right or wrong.


Even if a member of your family kills another person?


China will still be strong when it gives real cultural autonomy to Tibet or Xinqiang.

In our days, China is by no means weak, but it is a threat to other countries. Take the "new silk road" project: You will find many parallels to the early colonialism which was founded on trade relation and laid the basis for British East India or Netherlands East India (now Indonesia). In Africa, the white colonialists also came with fighting against evil (e.g. slave trade), but exploited the situation to their own benefit - as China does now in Africa. China has a neo-colonialist agenda, it wants to do with others what was done to it.


In still think it is a good think to stand for the self-determination of the people. In former days, this meant to stand on the side of China, but now that means to stand against China.

Ethno...isn't recognized by my spell check.
I cannot write it on this device.

The American melting pot, the bringing of
stone age natives into the present. Uniform
instruction in public schools. One 'cide after
another.

I would not lie in court. I will though stand
with a family member. The details are hypothetical.
If someone else sides with foreign powers
or with those hostile to their family, let them.
I won't.

If you feel the USA or any country will
be stronger or even survive being
balkanized into zones of "cultural
autonomy", go for it.

"Neocolonial" is not it, it's projecting
to come up with that.
Its actually resentment of a market dominant
minority. Fear of a rising rivalry on the world
stage.
As you freely admit, now it's time to oppose
China.

 

[helmut]

Ethno...isn't recognized by my spell check.

Ethnocide - Wikipedia

The American melting pot, the bringing of
stone age natives into the present. Uniform instruction in public schools. One 'cide after another.

There has been genocide in North America, and some ethnocide, but you seem to mix assimilation of immigrants to destroying the native culture by the ruling people who arrived from overseas.

And bad things done in America do not excuse bad things that are done now in China.

If you feel the USA or any country will
be stronger or even survive being
balkanized into zones of "cultural
autonomy", go for it.

The model is not the Balkans, but other countries: The UK (with Welsh, Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon-Scottish as recognized minority languages, with respect to cultural traits - e.g. the Scots wearing kilts). Or Switzerland (with four "primary" languages!). Even in my country, Germany, there are recognized minorities (Sorbs in eastern Germany, Frisians ans Danes in the very North). I don't see a balkanization there.

"Neocolonial" is not it, it's projecting to come up with that.

No. it is the present experience of cities that were promised much and ended up in a dependency built on debts, due to unfair agreements. Jobs promised were not created (or given to Chinese people exclusively), special rights for Chinese companies that don't pay taxes, and the like.

Fair competition is something different.

 

[Estrid]

Ethnocide - Wikipedia


There has been genocide in North America, and some ethnocide, but you seem to mix assimilation of immigrants to destroying the native culture by the ruling people who arrived from overseas.

And bad things done in America do not excuse bad things that are done now in China.


The model is not the Balkans, but other countries: The UK (with Welsh, Gaelic and Anglo-Saxon-Scottish as recognized minority languages, with respect to cultural traits - e.g. the Scots wearing kilts). Or Switzerland (with four "primary" languages!). Even in my country, Germany, there are recognized minorities (Sorbs in eastern Germany, Frisians ans Danes in the very North). I don't see a balkanization there.


No. it is the present experience of cities that were promised much and ended up in a dependency built on debts, due to unfair agreements. Jobs promised were not created (or given to Chinese people exclusively), special rights for Chinese companies that don't pay taxes, and the like.

Fair competition is something different.

Not disputing the reality of the word just this dumb
Samsung cannot be tricked into letting me write it.

As for our topic I guess it's run its course
We've fundamentally incompatible points
of view.
I see it that the assimilation of peoples
within the nation is essential.
The treatment of native Americans was full
of tragedy and injustice but in total was unavoidable.

You either had a patchwork of independent tribal
territories or a nation.

I know it's popular now, pc and all to think
"Diversity" has some terrific end point to it.

So far the US is increasingly weak and divided.