Romney hates guns and wouldn't need a UN treaty; he'd do it domestically.
He would do nothing to face China economically-his friends make too much money on China.
On domestic policy, he would not do anything different.
The childish "troll-boy" comment makes you look like you're not old enough to have whiskers, nevermind grey (gray) ones.
On ALL points : Romney would not have tried "Fast And Furious" in an abortive attempt to ban guns.
Of course he'd face China economically: he would not try for US economic dominance over them, unfortunately, but he would try for the economic equivalent of detente as opposed to Obama's surrender or Clinton's literal treason in giving them the guidance system for ICBMs through Loral, reassigning responsibility for oversight of the transfer to Commerce instead of Defense.
On Domestic Policy, he would not have pushed for massive tax increases, he would have supported small business, and would not have continued the war on coal or restricting oil recovery and exploration on Federal lands.
And aside from all that, the difference on nukes is both necessary and sufficient to override ALL other factors.
You are lying through your foul teeth.
Troll.