Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Carry_Okie
"World domination, however foolish or illogical it might be, has always had its attractions."

Not even remotely possible by any non-U.S. nation.

The sheer size of the American economy, nuclear arsenal, chemical arsenal, biological arsenal, and conventional military rules out any rational consideration of global domination.

At best, China can control its region, though the sheer size and might of India's economy, navy, nuclear arsenal, and population brings even that possibility into extreme question.

China has lost its last two ground wars: its invasion of India in the 1960's and its invasion of North Vietnam in 1979.

In contrast, China has had some serious success growing its economy and peacefully trading with the world.

Going to war with either Taiwan or India will risk nuclear retaliation (even without the U.S.) against Beijing and the Three Gorges Dam...as well as the obliteration of China's entire economy due to all of its manufacturing being on the coast where it can't protect its own infrastructure from counter-attacks.

Thus, China lives in a region of powers such as Japan and India that it may very well never come to dominate. And if China can't dominate its own home region against its local regional rivals, then it is in no position to even *think* about global domination.

It would be lucky to get its 18 nuclear ICBM's past America's new national missile defense shield...and even the mere attempt would end the lives of 1.4 billion Chinese in retaliation.

28 posted on 07/08/2004 5:38:05 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Southack
The sheer size of the American economy, nuclear arsenal, chemical arsenal, biological arsenal, and conventional military rules out any rational consideration of global domination.

How much of the chemical, biological, or nuclear arsenal can we really use? The only basis for which we have them is for deterrent value, to prevent like kind. Unless this isn't the America I stand for, they aren't offensive weapons, that is, unless you are advocating preemptive use of WMD. If you are, you should say so.

Going to war with either Taiwan or India will risk nuclear retaliation (even without the U.S.) against Beijing and the Three Gorges Dam...as well as the obliteration of China's entire economy due to all of its manufacturing being on the coast where it can't protect its own infrastructure from counter-attacks.

India yes, but they can take care of themselves. Taiwan... do you really think a US President would initiate a nuclear response if China attacked Taiwan? Really?

Not a prayer. You clearly don't understand the impotence of power.

Thus, China lives in a region of powers such as Japan and India that it may very well never come to dominate.

Thus nothing. China doesn't want to dominate Japan; they want to destroy it. That's easier.

And if China can't dominate its own home region against its local regional rivals, then it is in no position to even *think* about global domination.

False premise. First, I'm not talking about now, or even ten years from now, but perhaps thirty years out. If we are still exhausted and embroiled after trying to tame 1.3 BILLION Muslims, how much treasure and firepower will we have left for China?

Here's a clue: The US military arsenal was nearly depleted after Kosovo. We are running massive debts now. We haven't dealt with a quarter of the Islamic threat. We are pulling troops to cover Iraq now and making concessions to globalists (who want nothing more than to abet our demise as a sovereign nation) to get paltry help. We are accumulating enormous debts in front of the retirement of the baby boom. Our balance of payments is seriously out of whack. I don't think our long term prospects are that good unless we make serious domestic reforms, else we will not remain a dominant power. Meanwhile, our social and intellectual institutions (our crappy schools) are headed in the opposite direction. The Chinese know all of that, which is why the are only too happy to provide nuclear technology to Pakistan via their North Korean surrogates, , tie us up covering Taiwan, continue to deepen their penetration of the Western Hemisphere, and build a world class manufacturing and engineering infrastructure. They are patient. They have cash.

IMO, your position is sheer hubris.

At best, China can control its region, though the sheer size and might of India's economy, navy, nuclear arsenal, and population brings even that possibility into extreme question.

Why would they bother rousing India? Fighting a land war across the Himalaya is crazy from either of their perspectives without massive air or sea lift capability (which China has, but India doesn't.

It (China) would be lucky to get its 18 nuclear ICBM's past America's new national missile defense shield...and even the mere attempt would end the lives of 1.4 billion Chinese in retaliation.

ICBMs from China are the least my worries and nuclear war is far more survivable than you depict (as the Chinese know since our own experts went there to show them how... thanks to RINO, Nixon). Unless we are going to inspect every container ship on the high seas, we have no idea whence a nuclear or biological attack may originate from ships spread out all over the planet and in our ports. Our JIT economy with its food supply lines all over the world doesn't carry the inventory to sustain even a minor interruption. We aren't at all prepared for a conventional attack, much less an unconventional attack, from either a military or a civil perspective, much less economic. Once such a domestic strife is initiated, with a possible deal for the American Southwest in it for Mexico, what President will push the button when dealing with a domestic insurrection? How much of our law enforcement and domestic military would it take? We'd be sitting ducks at that point for a nuclear attack.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, there are a lot of reasons to include more than simply Iran, Syria, and Lebanon in a list of objectives. The particular omission of Pakistan in that list is especially egregious. In the short term, ESPECIALLY considering the source of conflict (namely the public indoctrination in violence and hatred being fomented by the Saudis), the author is absolutely correct to cite that we cut off the money, but never explained how to accomplish that tactical objective. That is why I emphasize privatizing regulation of access to domestic energy sources as the critical first step. Restoring our economic integrity while debilitating theirs (until the Muslims clean up their act) is absolutely essential to winning the long battle, a task that you (and the President) clearly underestimate.

34 posted on 07/08/2004 6:20:29 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Privatizating environmental regulation is critical to national defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson