Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
  1. #101
    Does advocating the nuclear destruction of another country constitute "nation bashing"?
    /s

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Trump has had nothing to do with it, and in fact has been an hindrance. While economic decoupling with China and cleaving the world into an American-sphere and a Chinese-sphere is both necessary and an inevitability, he has gone about doing it the most profoundly stupid way (tarrifs).

    In the end, it was Trump who decided on day one to abandon the Trans Pacific Partnership, the biggest US Geopolitical self-own in sixty years. The US will almost certainly rejoin TPP in the post-Trump era, but the time lost in isolating China through a multilateral effort - something it's neighbors are and remain very eager to do - only hurts us in the end.

    No matter what Trump says or does economically, in the end, he is the self declared "Tarrif Man" who abandoned TPP. He has zero-claim on anything positive going on in the economy.
    History of us soviet economic relations shows why trumps stratagy is wrong.

    Americas economy is capitolistic enough that any exposure to it from a heavily regulated economy is toxic to that economy, hence why people in the UK do have legit fears of a UK-US trade deal that involves health care and drugs.
    Last edited by Monster Hunter; 2019-12-31 at 11:26 PM.

  3. #103
    The day that nuclear weapons are used in an armed conflict is the day that the post-WW2 world order comes crashing down.

    Harry Truman made a famed decision to limit the Korean war, while others notably MacArthur wanted to expand it. Ultimately Truman won out and instead of a war that could have easily both turned into a total war that might have turned nuclear between Soviets and Americans, instead the war was limited in size and scope.

    In making that decision, that was expanded by Kennedy and Kruschev in resolving the Cuban Missile crisis, Truman ultimately prevented WW3 ( which many people at the time believed would inevitably happen ) while also not surrendering the democratic principles the United States stood for.

    Of course the United States should have a strong and formidable military and a modern nuclear arsenal, but using nukes is a last resort for a last resort ( war between China and the US ). The moment you normalize the usage of nuclear weapons is the moment everything generations of American leaders worked for over decades was for nothing.
    "Life is one long series of problems to solve. The more you solve, the better a man you become.... Tribulations spawn in life and over and over again we must stand our ground and face them."

    Retired <Dreamstate> Gehennas

  4. #104
    Banned Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    It is NOT Chinese water, it is international water. The islands that they are using to claim jurisdiction are man-made and do not count legally.
    It is Chinese water though, it has Chinese boats, islands and their army in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    Here's the thing. Yes, the OP is advocating for some seriously gross shit. But that's par for the course for the OP, he's been banned in the past for openly fantasizing about murder and torture, and it doesn't seem like he learned much from that. However, it's also the case that the vast majority of people in this thread (minus Kokolums who loves anything that he can use to say that a US civil war is coming) are of the clear opinion that the OP is insane and that nuking China would be an absurd and monstrous act.
    There's an issue though.
    People call him crazy for openly saying this. But with all the propaganda from the last few years more and more people start believing that China is an existential threat that needs to be eliminated.
    Yes, he's terrible for calling for the direct killing of millions.
    But I also see a lot of "moderates" calling for actions that would indirectly kill millions, they want to destroy the nation.

    None of that justifies being an extremist in reverse though. When it comes to the laws regarding territorial waters and international waters, that is some really important stuff that countries CAN'T just sit out of and let play out however. The majority of the world agreed to the rules on that because the way it was without them, with piracy on every major trade route and literal murder over fishing spots, was bad for everyone. The US military has done some shit things, but it's role in maintaining a degree of order and safety on the world's oceans is an important one that can't be tossed out without consequences.
    The problem with "international law" is that most of those things come from a time when the US and its buddies literally ruled the world.
    That's akin to constitutional monarchies.. "Yeah, I am king because the law says so.", well no shit, he made that law in the first place.
    The majority of the world didn't really have a choice.

  5. #105
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    It is Chinese water though, it has Chinese boats, islands and their army in it.


    There's an issue though.
    People call him crazy for openly saying this. But with all the propaganda from the last few years more and more people start believing that China is an existential threat that needs to be eliminated.
    Yes, he's terrible for calling for the direct killing of millions.
    But I also see a lot of "moderates" calling for actions that would indirectly kill millions, they want to destroy the nation.


    The problem with "international law" is that most of those things come from a time when the US and its buddies literally ruled the world.
    That's akin to constitutional monarchies.. "Yeah, I am king because the law says so.", well no shit, he made that law in the first place.
    The majority of the world didn't really have a choice.
    That is NOT how territorial water is established. You have to have recognized legal control of natural land that is never below water to establish territorial water, and the land has to be habitable to claim economic zones. China made the islands, and they have no recognized claim. China has agreed to the legal definitions of UNCLOS.
    Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    “Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.”
    "His knowledge on that topic is only power point deep..." "Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
    "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

  6. #106
    Please wait Temp name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Under construction
    Posts
    11,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    It is Chinese water though, it has Chinese boats, islands and their army in it.
    So if the US goes there and makes a bunch of islands, they can be like "US waters now, get out China"?

    Because those islands were man-made, so surely the US would be allowed to make their own islands too?
    THAT is the reason UN law states the islands must be natural, because otherwise that would happen EVERYWHERE with oil, with countries competing to be the first to make their new islands.

  7. #107
    Banned Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    28,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    That is NOT how territorial water is established. You have to have recognized legal control of natural land that is never below water to establish territorial water, and the land has to be habitable to claim economic zones. China made the islands, and they have no recognized claim. China has agreed to the legal definitions of UNCLOS.
    No, those islands were already there.
    China inhabited them to make a claim.
    China, just like the rest of the world, didn't have much of a choice. But it's theirs now and there is nothing you can do about it, so I suggest you stay in your little country and leave the rest of the world alone.

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythic-RaidLead View Post
    Something needs to be done. I don't know what. But military options including the use of thermonuclear weapons should be on the table. I doesn't mean we have to use them, but we should keep an open mind. Thermonuclear weapons need not be the 1.2 megaton giants that the public perceives them to be, smaller nuclear devices such as 100 kiloton warheads are an option.

    The Chinese Communist Party is guilty of perpetrating mass human rights violations such as mass murder of the Falun Gong, political prisoners, and a host of other issues. We need to send a message to the CCP that Chinese aggression will not be tolerated.

    In China's Crackdown on Uigers, Children ARE NOT SPARED WTF

    There are bigger worries with this totalitarian regime. China is a possible superpower in 2050. They could decide to ignore US warnings and straight up invade and take over Taiwan. Without proper deterrence, they WILL try it. I believe we need to seriously arm Taiwan with thermonuclear weapons OR extend our nuclear umbrella to protect them. We know China wants to take over another country:Taiwan, but we know they won't do it at a severe cost. If Taiwan had 1000 nuclear warheads each 100 kt to 5 mt, that could be a sufficient deterrence.

    But the question is this: Will nuclear weapons ever become obsolete? And if so, what are the alternatives? We need to hold back against China which will be the biggest threat to national security in the middle of the 21st century. All military options need to be on the table, including nuclear weapons.

    China plans to fight a nuclear war against America

    Good luck with that China, I mean seriously, good luck with that, you know you cannot win against the United States in this. In a nuclear war between US and China, we will win. But we do need to avoid millions of deaths. So here is a question:

    What systems are being developed that can effectively stop an all-out nuclear strike against the United States? Suppose China sends 1000 nukes ICBMs at us, how do we strike them all down before they reach their main targets? Seems to me there is research going on here, however I'm not sure if they can stop almost every ICBM from hitting the USA if they decide to launch hundreds or thousands of them at us.

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/20/1...defense-review
    Some observations here:
    a) No one know the exact number of nukes that each country has but their governments
    b) Warheads in their terminal phase are 99% not interceptable by any existing technology. This means that if you don't destroy them while taking off, are almost guarantee to hit somewhere close to their target
    c) If USA arms Taiwan with thermonuclear weapons, what stops China arming Iran or any other country that wants to hurt the US? Bad Bad Bad idea
    d) China WILL BE the next superpower even before 2050. USA needs to accept that and play around this. War is not the answer

  9. #109
    Great idea! Nuke a country that also has nukes.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    No, those islands were already there.
    China inhabited them to make a claim.
    China, just like the rest of the world, didn't have much of a choice. But it's theirs now and there is nothing you can do about it, so I suggest you stay in your little country and leave the rest of the world alone.
    They didn't have a choice in what? Observing the international law to which they have agreed? Vietnam and Philippines did not build artificial islands. Why China did, then?
    Ah, little country does not count? You remind me of some Russians who said that small countries have no right to exist. Good to see you supporting imperialism.

  11. #111
    The Insane Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    19,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    No, those islands were already there.
    China inhabited them to make a claim.
    China, just like the rest of the world, didn't have much of a choice. But it's theirs now and there is nothing you can do about it, so I suggest you stay in your little country and leave the rest of the world alone.
    Wrong. All of the occupied "islands" either were only exposed at low tide or were insufficiently large enough to sustain human life. They were all also claimed by other countries with stronger claims. We all know you support occupation=ownership because it benefits your country of loyalty, Russia.

    My country isnt little by any measure, unlike either country you are known to be associated with.....
    Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    “Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.”
    "His knowledge on that topic is only power point deep..." "Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
    "Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    Does advocating the nuclear destruction of another country constitute "nation bashing"?
    I'd put it closer to advocating genocide since that's how most people view nuclear destruction on other countries. Irradiated wasteland with no or few survivors (even if that's pretty much untrue).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •