The Next Empire

The USA a bully? I think not. OK - we use the most oil. We interject whenever something threatens that. We also produce more than any other country. A lot of the world benefits from our "misdeeds".

I guess the world is very lucky that our society is not one just to take what we need rather than acting as we do.

China is no problem. Any army they put together can be stopped with minimal effort. The issue would be finding a USA commander that had the balls to use the weapons that are available to him.

These of course are weapons of mass destruction. Isn't it strange that the USA has many but does not hesitate to condemn others that want them.

:smok:

 

Please read this again.
It is an analogy.

 

Hmm... "We need oil. Iraq has it." Fortunatrely they were also governed by a criminal dictator whom everybody wanted to be shot, and maybe possibly may have had contacts with a certain individual who is currently missing, who listens to the initials "OBL".

I wonder whether there will ever be an American commander with the balls to use the US nuclear arsenal. Not because he's an American but because that is a very drastic step to take. Maybe something for another discussion?

 

I wasn't talking about nukes.

There are much more lethal weapons available that do not destroy the landscape. Some have as short a life of 2 to 4 weeks and could wipe out most of a country's population, especially one with such a huge population.

Bacteriological.

:smok:

 

It's the same for China, they too have to import nearly all their oil.[/quote]

It is interesting to note that China also has huge oil fields in its western territories, and it stil has tons of oil resource beneath the South China sea. China is just doing the exact same thing that US is doing: use oil from other countries' first, save its own sources of oil for later.

 

It has something to say for it. If people think they can shut such a country down by cutting off the oil supply, they will soon realize that they are painfully wrong. However, I disapprove of using that of others first if you have your own.

 

While it's true that China has continued to grow as an Asian power, it will never match the extend of the US or the Russian domination during the Cold war, when their tentacles reached into every corner of the globe. In order to be a global bully, you have to have a strong blue-water navy. Even if you put the entire Chinese navy together, still still pales in comparison to the US 7TH Pacific fleet, which by the way is partly "responsible" for guiding the Taiwan straits.

Here's a list of China's recent "aggression"
1. Korean war: Its low-tech low quality army certainly taught the arrogant McCarthy a lesson. Was it considered an act of aggression? Just for comparisons, would the US sit idle if Russians cross into Canadien border and start flying bombing missions on the Great lakes or chasing the Canadiens across the border to Buffalo or Detroit?
2. Vietnam War: it provided military aids (money, equipment and military advisors), again, would the US provide aids to Canada if it's attacked by Russia?
3. Border clashes with India in 60's and 70's. Stemmed from territorial disputes that still exist today between Pakistan/India/China.

While most Americans felt rightious and justified (often myself included) to send troops to "liberate" other countries: Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Afghanistan, middleeast, ....etc, on the other hand, we would cry fouled when our own spy plane was forced down 20 miles off the coast of China, in the South China Sea no less. I wonder how we will feel if the Russians start flying spy planes off the coast of Virginia, in "international" water.

The take home point is, the slogan of "freedom and democracy" is often used to cover up the real reasons for America's foreign excursions: our own national interest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, every country has the right to look out for its own interest, even if it means offending others. I don't blame the US for annexing New Mexico, or wrestling Phillippines and Cuba from Spain....etc. As the saying goes, no matter what you do, there will always be people who hates you.

 

Greg - China certainly has nukes of her own, and I'd guess they are fairly bound to have bacteriological agents as well.
Would you like to risk finding out?

Liang - calm down! Who called China an aggressor?
Plus - Vietnam, I believe that North Vietnam actually invaded South Vietnam, and that the Americans were very careful not to step across the border...

Oh, and you left off Tibet!

 

Oh yeah I forgot about Tibet. That depends who you ask, historically, Tibet was ruled by multiple Chinese Dynasties in the past, as of Taiwan, by the way. So it wasn't like they went out of their way and crossed several oceans to send its troops to invade other countries (alas the US). I saw one of those "free Tibet" demonstrations in Boston a few years ago, it was an interesting experience.

 

Watch out for India, they have nukes, they have a very big navy, parts of it are going to be nuclear powerd and capable. They are agressive and care not for China.

 

I don't know if they, with their extensive part of British habits and culture, would ever turn really hostile on the Western world. Might be an interestig question.

 

Perhaps China does have bacteriological weapons.

That does not change my point.

In a balls out war, one destroys the enemy - period. Kill and be killed; kill or be killed.

Nasty business! That's why we call it war.

:smok:

 

HMMMMMmm 2 to 4 weeks and bacterial do not go together.

Chemical maybe but not bacterial.

 

Oh really....
:bang:

 

Yes really. The bacteria which are less stable are also less lethal and less likely to kill. To Kill in those quantities you would need a more lethal bacteria and therefore a more persistent one.

IMHO

P.S.

If the Chinese will kill their own with impunity do you not think they are more likely to use it on you first.

 

Believe what you want.

If you think that there are no 2-4 week bacteriological agents available then that is fine, you just go right ahead and believe that.

While I do not know the name of the specific agent I am about to refer to; this scenario existed in the mid 1970's. We, the USA developed a bacterological agent that in two passes, would wipe out some 86% of China's population. Agent had an expected life of 2-4 weeks.

The Soviets caught wind of the program and literally threatened war if we did not scrap the program. Did we? Your guess is as good as mine. It is almost 30 years later ...

Source: R.R. Pitts, Top Secret, USA Aeronautical Defense Industry.

So, I really don't care what you think GP, I know better.

:smok:

 

Greg, my point was that if the US used any kind of WMD on China - surely China would respond.
Despite recent 'counter-terrorism' practice, I doubt America is prepared for full-scale WMD attack.

GP - short-lived bacteriological agents are (supposedly!) around.
Think about the benefits - if you infect somewhere with one that lasts for months - it could spread a little too far. Plus, if it only lasts weeks, you can wait a month then waltz in and pick up the pieces.

Liang - at one point Britain legitimately ruled 2/3 of France (via dynastic marriage) but even our most extremist nutcases would not seriously consider invading them. Was Tibet aggression...?
Formosa/Taiwan - well, that's Civil War for you!

 

They are around but to kill in large quantities they are not as strong and therefore not as likely to kill.

From the table shown the lethality is relevant to the toxicity.

 

If you talk about biological weapons then that is a different matter.

Different weapons are developed for different uses.

AS I sated previously chemical weapons can be easily manufactured to requirements, i.e.. high toxicity and non-resistance biological as well, however, bacteria are part of biological and they are harder to produce in both toxicity and non-resistance

 

If you want to conquer a nation just give them T.V.'s and blast them with fictional facts. Like the band U2 sang these lyrics '"where facts are fiction and TV reality"'.