Vanilla Ice Q&A

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by HippoCrushEverything, Aug 13, 2017.

  1. Every country has idealists who would prefer that the military didn't exist, or that the *insert military structure* would be relegated to a "self-defense" or "peacekeeping" force with no real capabilities to defend against a competent adversary. But it's ok because why can't we just live in peace make love not war maaaannn!

    [​IMG]

    Japan probably has a large amount of people who think that 80's or 90's capabilities will do today, because in their minds a status quo lasts forever, à la French and UK administrations in the 30's. Today's China can snatch an island here and there, and make retaking them quite difficult, something 90's China could only dream about. Perhaps it's easier to stick to whatever was true in some past scenario than admit a disadvantageous shift in the balance of power.

    [​IMG]

    There is also a small number of crazy ass nationalists who want to rewrite history and probably re-establish their lovely "co-prosperity sphere" with blackjack and Korean sex slaves.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. are you worried japan and china might get into some kind of conflict?
     
  3. It's not implausible but I'm not particularly worried about it.
     
  4. Japan and China are both large, rational state actors. Direct conflict is not so worrisome (though possible, and those two aren't the best neighbors). One of the big issues I see is how we cooperate with secondary states in Asia, and the American / Japanese / South Korean / Australian defense arrangement in the area has a big part to play in the favor of those states. China wants to carve out its sphere of influence in the South China Sea, and we can choose to challenge it or let it happen.
     
  5. is it a foregone conclusion that the US, led by the Stable Genius, the Great Dealmaker, would jump on Japans side in a conflict
     
  6. I think its worth remembering that the purpose of a military extends significantly beyond defense, even if it's never called to action. A strong military does not mean having an aggressive foreign policy, but an independent one, and having the ability to defend oneself independent of the United States means Japan has a much bigger seat at the table when discussing defense and security with the United States in the Asia-Pacific. In other words, regardless of whether Japan can depend on the United States for its security (it can), Japan feels the need to assert its status as a great power and always come to the table as a peer, rather than a junior partner.

    The Japanese-American alliance has been, for many decades, the guarantor of security in the Asia-Pacific (with South Korea and Australia as significant contributors). This comes with many benefits for both the guarantors and the guarantees, especially with respect to trade and cultural influence. With the rise of China, the default role of that alliance is being upended. Japan is making strides to defend that status quo, and the benefits it reaps from it, with or without the weird duality of isolationism and provocation in the United States under Trump. This is not a matter of conflict with China, but competition with China over the influence of smaller third-party states.
     
    HippoCrushEverything likes this.
  7. do you think china is close to eclipsing the US as the preeminent world power
     
  8. seabee, do you think that the question mark is a lesser form of punctuation
     
  9. are you asking me a question
     
  10. The IDF is a good example of being dependent on the United States whilst maintaining its own strength. Pretty sure they have plans for when the aid stops coming in too.
     
  11. No.

    But the United States will have much less of a say in what happens near China.
     
  12. China already has a larger economy than the United States, and has the ability to - on paper - surpass the United States in its holdings of military hardware in short order. But there's much, much more to power than how many destroyers you field in your navy. For seventy years, the United States has utilized its hard- and soft-power together under a consistent and mutually-reinforcing doctrine to build relationships that China cannot hope to replicate any time soon. By way of analogy, China has a larger economy than the United States (it produces goods and services at a greater rate), but the United States is still, by an immense margin, the wealthiest country (the cumulative accumulation of value over time) - so it is with power in many ways also.

    For instance, American non-proliferation policy with respect to its close allies has dictated that the United States offers its guarantee of protection, in exchange for her allies' word not to develop independent deterrents of their own. The guaranteed states are offered an immense subsidy on their defense, in exchange for allowing the guarantor to set collective policy and posture. And nuclear policy is just one example, with the integration and interdependence within NATO (especially among the original members) being extraordinarily close - commanders from pretty much any NATO state can be asked to lead pretty much any collective operation, and just walk in and do the job because the structures are already there. And while NATO is the largest such forum, it's far from the most extensive, with the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand having formal interoperability agreements in signals intelligence, communications, defense research, and in each of the three environmental branches of the military, air, land and sea.

    Beyond these formalized alliances, and rights to base the world over, the United States also has experience in utilizing its hard- and soft-power abroad to accomplish its aims. How to integrate fixed-wing naval aviation into a foreign ground campaign is a skill really possessed only by the United States, France and the UK and the only way for China to gain that skill, frankly, is in an expensive foreign war. Such skill-acquisition is obviously not beyond the Chinese by any means, but you also have to consider political will and culture here too. While the United States has spent the last 70 years building relationships with powerful states all over the world, China has spent the last 70 years calling this behavior colonialism as part of its Communist and, in turn, explicitly anti-colonial political culture. You have to ask if China even wants to replicate this behavior globally, or if its content using its economic and explicit diplomatic tools to reach its aims?
     
  13. Trump is doing his best to undo that.
     
  14. Do you think China's investment in the developing (or trying to develop) world has more than financial opportunity to it?
     
  15. SEABEE likes this.
  16. I remember being told, less than 10 years ago, that the GDP of China would never surpass that of the United States... I guess some people are just ignorant beyond redemption. If my memory serves me correctly, some of these opinions were presented on this very forum.

    Nominal GDP estimates are still behind the United States, though. And there exists a group of people who disregard any GDP figures about China as completely fake. Doesn't matter if the organisation behind the estimate is the World Bank or the IMF.
     
  17. isnt it weird how suddenly the right wing of this country likes russia and the left wing is very suspicious of them
     
  18. Lefties like the Department of Defense and James Mattis?
     
  19. This seems to be the topic where war related stuff is discussed, so:

    Have you guys heard that Trump is thinking about nominating John Bolton to be his national security adviser? This is guy so hawkish on war that even the right wingers think he's too extreme. Apparently he's being nominated to an advising position because he wouldn't pass Senate confirmation for a cabinet position -- this is how extreme people in Washington think he is, even in the Republican Party.

    This dude has been pushing for a war with Iran for quite some time now. Apparently, he'd also push Trump for a conflict with North Korea, even at a time when NK is open for dialogue. Fun times ahead.
     
  20. Commies, all of them.

    If Hitler says Hindenburg is a leftist, it must be true.
     
  21. More propaganda out of that well-known bastion for leftists, the CIA:

    [​IMG]
     
  22. The Korea Hawk Who Wasn’t Hawkish Enough
     
  23. Langley Liberal, meet West Point Progressive, obviously.

    [​IMG]
     
  24. This one? The previous ones weren't?
     

Share This Page