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.
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." - Carry_Okie
Oh good grief. You are paying so little attention that you are going to cause me to type my fingers off. First of all, we've already used our nuclear (ww2 Hiroshima, Nagasaki), chemical (WW1 Mustard Gas), and biological (ww1 Anthrax) arsenals for offensive operations long before you were likely even born.
Second, my point in mentioning those primarily defensive arsenals was to show incontravertable evidence that the U.S. can't be dominated by any other power.
Can't happen... simply because we possess them in such vast quantities.
Thus, the entire notion...the whole concept that any other nation could rationally seek out global domination in the next 50 to 100 years is the stuff of PURE Grade A science fiction.
If you want to get nuked, gassed, and bugged to a degree that not even the biblical book of Revelations could describe, then simply try to dominate the U.S. militarily.
Taiwan financed, South Africa provided the location and the uranium, and Israel provided the technical expertise to develop their atomic arsenals. That's how Israel got the bomb. South Africa has voluntarily disarmed and abandoned its nuclear arsenal, but I doubt that Taiwan has felt so inclined.
As I made painfully evident in my original post, China gets nuked *EVEN WITHOUT THE U.S.* intervening in any Indian or Taiwanese invasion.
China is surrounded by nuclear neighbors. Taiwan, India, North Korea, Russia, and Pakistan. Their little neighbor Vietnam isn't nuclear, but it managed to whip the PLA left, right, up, and down, back in 1979 when China got uppity.
Thus, China's ability to militarily expand even in their own region is in serious question.
And if they can't expand their dominance (heck, they might not even be dominate over India, Taiwan, and Japan as it is) regionally, then by default they can't dominate the planet per yer ridiculous "global domination" theory.
Which frankly is so ludicrous as to be laughable. China can't even dominate its own region. It has barely more people than India, is less productive than Japan, and is surrounded in its own region by nuclear powers.
If you can't dominate your own region, then by default you can't dominate the globe.
The half life of the atomic trigger isotopes is typically less than 90 days. Likewise, the radiation from the atomic core and shell plays havoc with the electronics and conventional explosives used to start the chain reaction. Moreover, heavy metals such as uranium and plutonium are among the most rust-prone, fragile metals known to man...not a great thing to have working against you if you are trying to ship a working device overseas...and the assembly of such devices on-site requires extremely competent personnel and a clean lab...something that takes a fair amount of effort to put onto an ocean going seasick machine for an 8 to 12 week journey.
And such an attack would only work once. All ships would be halted miles off of our coasts after the first successful blast.
As for a bio attack...bio agents are piss poor military weapons. They make for great terror weapons because they frighten the effeminate liberal news media...but they don't kill on the spot and can be contained and fought with medical technology.
Imports and exports combined only make up 15% of our entire economy. They could disappear tomorrow and 85% of America would never miss 'em.
Currently, 9.5% of our annual GDP is from imports, while 5.5% is what we export. Well, if all imports were gone tomorrow, that would mean that we'd have to grow our domestic economy by 9.5% to make up for what we no longer imported.
That's hardly something to fear. Throw me into that briar patch.
Drill like mad.
But don't get too worked up about it. Almost the entire German war machine of WW2 was run off of coal oil, something that becomes economically viable here in the U.S. today if oil stays above $45 per barrel for any great length of time...and the U.S. has more coal than the rest of the world combined. We can make coal oil long after Saudi Arabia has bled their last oil well dry.
What crude oil does is give us *cheap* energy. But replacements for crude (e.g. coal oil, propane, nuclear, solar, etc.) are simply a little more expensive.
Not a lot, just a little more expensive. We can live without them if we have to. Knock 5% off of one year's GDP and 2.5% off of the next and you'd probably come reasonably close to how we'd look if there was no more black crude oil for whatever reason.