Quote:Quote:
Because war is incredibly expensive when it involves your nation directly and your opponents are similarly advanced proximate military threats with the ability to severely disrupt your trade relations, wipe out much of your population, and damage your infrastructure. A major conflict involving China and several East Asian powers has the potential to create serious losses in men and material to China, which would not bode well for economic growth (ex: shrinking an already shrinking labor force further, sucking up a lot of money and many resources that currently are used to fuel economic growth, etc).
China, a nation already grappling with how to deal with an aging population and keep on growing in spite of it, doesn't need a war. Growth is the priority of the Chinese government, and war isn't good for growth.
You are making the same mistake as rudebwoy:
Quote:Quote:
War is coming, it may be nuclear this time.
Watch the Ukraine situation, notice how the coverage has died.
You guys are assuming the wars of tomorrow will be like the wars of the past. Wars are
never faught the same way.
For example, in Ancient Greece they used phalanxes and lines of citizen-soldiers. In Rome they used legions of professional soldiers with calvary, artillery, and long lines of supplies. Genghis Khan relied almost exclusively on his cavalry as well as sophisticated road communication system (look this up - it was amazing) so he could cover ground fast and steamroll his opponents before they could organize.
Crossbows eventually changed warfare in some French battle that resulted in the end of melee combat as a dominant form of winning. Then guns and gunpowder came along. Then trench warfare, followed by atomized tanks, and finally the nuclear bomb.
So why assume this century's wars will be anything like last century's wars? It seems obvious to me that it will not. I think the future of warfare has already been established in the Ukraine conflict. Because direct military invasions are too dangerous and risk nuclear conflict, instead the strategy will be to destabilize, cause a revolt or revolution, and then move in with "help" to "normalize" the situation.
So with the South China sea story, we are already seeing the small encroachment of territory:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-15...-china-sea
Against the Philippines, who has no nuclear bombs, they will be powerless to resist China. And since China is not using a full scale invasion, they are not as risk of nuclear war. Likewise with Vietnam, the Chinese will just edge along the borders, use their superior economic might to slowly shake down opposing economies until the citizens are destitute and unhappy and wait for the inevitable revolt.
Then once chaos strikes, as it did in Ukraine, you hold a "referendum" and move in the troops after it vote passes with a super-majority. Now, I am not saying the Vietnamese will vote to let in the Chinese. Rather they will fall into disarray and vote for something against their interests, and China will capitalize on it. That will be the general pattern for Asia.
War is different today - no longer with countries invading - so instead the focus will be on sparking civil unrest, economic decline, and general chaos so a more organized force can move in unopposed and without much international outrage.
Of course, I could be wrong. There might be giant nuclear disaster on the horizon. Who knows? But I think the Ukrainian example is instructive. Far easier to take down countries today without invading just by destabilizing them from within.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can
follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.