rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

Quote: (11-17-2014 06:59 PM)DChambers Wrote:  

^^ The U.S. never really mobilized the entire resources of the nation for Vietnam either. We fought that war with one hand and our left foot tied behind our back.

Well, it was the last war when people were drafted, and last one where you had massive casualties to report home.
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

Quote: (11-17-2014 06:45 PM)Orion Wrote:  

USA foreign policy and war it sponsors, are mainly led to satisfy arms industry, which is really en enormous amount of money for everyone involved. Hence, shortsighted, greedy, impulsive and unreasonable profit machinery cannot see long term consequences. Such is the nature of uncontrolled capitalism. USA never mobilized entire nation since Vietnam war. Which means that majority of population really has no clue that country is in deep hostilities with some folks abroad. As soldiers themselves frequently say, if some of them would only come to Afghanistan to witness the price of prosperity they enjoy at home.

Nothing is same since end of Vietnam war. Since then, war, for America, means nothing but good business. And quite probably, it is the bloodiest business in human history, which consequences and true nature, students will probably learn at school in post-American era, just as we learned about crusades or slave trade.


http://mises.org/daily/2450
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

China will fuck up Japan bad.
Russia will invade Poland and Ukraine, and make its influence once again over EE.
The EU will all apart, civil war and secessions (Catalonia, Scotland, Ireland) following its wake.
The UK will align itself with the USA and leave the EU.
The USA will sit this one out, and pay lip service as she will loose the world's leading powerhouse title to China.

Deus vult!
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

China is vastly overrated both in terms of military capability, as well as economic and social stability. Most young adults today forget the days of the Cold War, and as a result, irrationally overestimate China's rise.

What needs to be taken into consideration:

- China's conventional military is, at best, 20-30 years behind the U.S. Even though military expenditures are rising in China, it needs to be taken into account that U.S. technology and capabilities are still growing at a much faster rate, and that the majority of technical innovations coming from China are simply stolen ideas, blueprints, and reverse-engineered American products. China's latest jets and drones are proof of this.
- China is completely inexperienced in both conventional and unconventional warfare. They haven't fought as a unified country in centuries, and even in WW2, were fragmented into multiple opposing factions. The only military confrontations were against tiny bordering countries like Vietnam, which bloodied China's nose. They've never conducted a successful amphibious landing, they've never deployed millions of troops to the other half of the world, and they've never executed combined arms operations.
- China has severe demographic issues. Hundreds of millions are entering retirement without an adequate younger generation to pay for social services (think Germany but on a much larger scale). A country with several billion people and limited arable land / resources can't sustain both an obedient population and a large military at the same time. In the event of total war, China will either face domestic uprisings and revolts (already the case in some provinces) or lose it's military numerical superiority, or both.
- China produces extremely low-quality products. The QBZ-95 standard assault rifle in the PLA for example, is a piece of plastic that can't handle more than 50 consecutive shots in a field environment (I have one myself). The Soviets at least produced robust, reliable equipment en masse, while the Chinese have mastered neither quality nor quantity. A large, capable military can't be properly equipped.
- Morale in the PLA is abysmal. Outside the officer corps, PLA recruits are extremely poor, uneducated, and are detached from Communist propaganda. To operate modern equipment and technology, educated soldiers are more valuable than those who can simply pull a trigger.
- China is entering a "point of no return" within politics and economics. The Communist party is unwilling and unable to adapt to an evolving global economy, and social movements have been boiling under the surface for some time. The West has "found itself" in the post-WW2 decades and we're adapted for handling social change, while China has never experienced it, except at gunpoint.

To summarize, the U.S. succeeds in military operations because of cutting-edge technology, a vast military-industrial complex in the homeland, overwhelming political and economic support for the military (similar to Egyptian and Israeli cultures), decades of first-hand experience in large-scale conventional and unconventional warfare, high quality manufacturing of military hardware, a superb higher education system, the worlds largest economy, and the third highest population on earth. We have more allies, while China really has none; Russia is fueled by self-interest, rather than ideological or cultural ties as the US has with Europe.

So chill guys. The fact that someone is challenging us doesn't mean they're a legitimate threat. We would decimate the PLAAF and Navy within a matter of weeks, in which case numerical superiority (really, the only advantage China has) is rendered irrelevant.
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

^^ Unless things go nuclear.

I that occurred all of our surface fleet and our main installations would be gone. Indeed, since the President changed the policy of nuclear retaliation, instead of launching upon our detection of enemy nukes inbound we will now absorb the first strike and then retaliate (with what you might add), a nuclear war would find us at a great disadvantage.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

Quote: (11-18-2014 08:11 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

^^ Unless things go nuclear.

I that occurred all of our surface fleet and our main installations would be gone. Indeed, since the President changed the policy of nuclear retaliation, instead of launching upon our detection of enemy nukes inbound we will now absorb the first strike and then retaliate (with what you might add), a nuclear war would find us at a great disadvantage.

Nah, right now and for some years into the future, the Chinese do not have enough deployed ready weapons to mount a "counterforce" strike which would take out American land based ICBMs and other bases. They have less than 100 land based and sub-launched ICBMs They are only starting to get MIRVs now.

The USA could ride out a Chinese first strike and still utterly destroy China.

Both the USA and the USSR came close to launching on false alarms in the past.

In a conventional war, the US submarine fleet would be limited only by its payload of torpedoes and missiles in sinking targets. They could sit in the Straits of Taiwan and pick off invasion transports. Probably with a few other navies like the Japanese, British and French, too.

The one cool thing the Chinese have developed is a ballistic missile with terminally guided warheads to possibly sink a carrier.
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

My grandfather's family was bombed by allied planes, endured starvation, my grandmother was shot at by allied airplanes and spend a year in a concentration camp. My other grandparents had sleepless nights because of the noise of canons from naval battles far away. My hometown's inner city was completely bombed flat by the germans and bombed even more by the british. Not far from where I lived a year ago thousands and thousands of young men of my people and of my age met their death, initiating the fall of the west.
I'm not sure why I'm typing this, I'm not trying to make an argument with it.
Anyway I don't believe shit when people talk about Russia invading Poland or China attacking the US. Atomic bombs and the loss of income through trade is a too big of a deterrent.
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

Quote: (11-18-2014 08:11 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

^^ Unless things go nuclear.

I that occurred all of our surface fleet and our main installations would be gone. Indeed, since the President changed the policy of nuclear retaliation, instead of launching upon our detection of enemy nukes inbound we will now absorb the first strike and then retaliate (with what you might add), a nuclear war would find us at a great disadvantage.

Remember a few years ago there were news reports of the Navy shooting a failed spy satellite that was entering orbit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-193
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_B...t_Timeline
That satellite would have disintegrated through the atmosphere. The whole charade was a military test exercise to see if a missile, launched on a boat, could hit a fast moving target that high up in the atmosphere (think like an ICBM).

If an ICBM gets launched by another power, I wouldn't be surprised if the US has the capability to destroy them while they are en route.

Quote: (11-18-2014 12:39 PM)Erasmus Wrote:  

Atomic bombs and the loss of income through trade is a too big of a deterrent.

The US has been pushing Russia into a corner with sanctions. All it takes is a drop in oil prices and the Kremlin has no economic outlets left but to fight for survival.

Edit: Here's more info on the US's missile defense system. It even mentions how the system was tested to shoot down that falling satellite. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects...ce-bmd-us/
Some bright folks working in defense.
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

Quote: (11-18-2014 11:51 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-18-2014 08:11 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

^^ Unless things go nuclear.

I that occurred all of our surface fleet and our main installations would be gone. Indeed, since the President changed the policy of nuclear retaliation, instead of launching upon our detection of enemy nukes inbound we will now absorb the first strike and then retaliate (with what you might add), a nuclear war would find us at a great disadvantage.

Nah, right now and for some years into the future, the Chinese do not have enough deployed ready weapons to mount a "counterforce" strike which would take out American land based ICBMs and other bases. They have less than 100 land based and sub-launched ICBMs They are only starting to get MIRVs now.

The USA could ride out a Chinese first strike and still utterly destroy China.

Both the USA and the USSR came close to launching on false alarms in the past.

In a conventional war, the US submarine fleet would be limited only by its payload of torpedoes and missiles in sinking targets. They could sit in the Straits of Taiwan and pick off invasion transports. Probably with a few other navies like the Japanese, British and French, too.

The one cool thing the Chinese have developed is a ballistic missile with terminally guided warheads to possibly sink a carrier.

Ah I was unclear. I am assuming that China and Russia are united in any scenario in which one takes on the U.S. No one power could take on the U.S. Russia's nuclear payload would devastate the U.S. to a large extent though.

In addition the U.S. continues to keep 1/2 of its submarine fleet docked at King's Bay Georgia at all times to adhere to a disarmament treaty. A single nuke hitting that location would devastate the U.S. sub fleet. If satellite and GPS systems are disabled then the U.S. fleet would be blind.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

Quote: (11-18-2014 06:14 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

- China's conventional military is, at best, 20-30 years behind the U.S.

Can you please elaborate ? I'm curious

Quote:Quote:

Even though military expenditures are rising in China, it needs to be taken into account that U.S. technology and capabilities are still growing at a much faster rate, and that the majority of technical innovations coming from China are simply stolen ideas, blueprints, and reverse-engineered American products. China's latest jets and drones are proof of this

It's a matter of budget limitations. US has largest budget in the world and hence it dictates all development. Others just catch up because trial and error process that is required to innovate is too much cost ineffective. Why doesn't UK make any sophisticated new generation aircraft, if it is knowledge that is necessary (And UK clearly possesses knowledge in that field). Or Israel. Nope, only fifth generation aircraft to be seen in near future are American, Russian and Chinese.

Quote:Quote:

- China is completely inexperienced in both conventional and unconventional warfare.


How come ?

Quote:Quote:

They haven't fought as a unified country in centuries, and even in
WW2, were fragmented into multiple opposing factions.


I think you are completely clueless about scale of fighting in second Chinese-Japanese war. You probably imagine it as some kind of bush war, rebellion or guerrilla, but in fact it was a full frontal, conventional war.

Quote:Quote:

- China has severe demographic issues. Hundreds of millions are entering retirement without an adequate younger generation to pay for social services (think Germany but on a much larger scale). A country with several billion people and limited arable land / resources can't sustain both an obedient population and a large military at the same time.

True, but Chinese opponents suffer same problems. Particularly Japanese, which suffer dramatic demographic decline.

Quote:Quote:

Morale in the PLA is abysmal

Yeah, according to "let's pat our own shoulders" articles on western news websites.

Quote:Quote:

Outside the officer corps, PLA recruits are extremely poor, uneducated, and are detached from Communist propaganda.


Brother, welcome to 21. century where no one in China gives a pigs ass about Communism anymore.

Quote:Quote:

To operate modern equipment and technology, educated soldiers are more valuable than those who can simply pull a trigger.

You are clueless about military. Period.

Quote:Quote:

- China is entering a "point of no return" within politics and economics. The Communist party is unwilling and unable to adapt to an evolving global economy, and social movements have been boiling under the surface for some time.


China made dramatic political and particularly economic changes over a quite short period of time. China started economic liberalization reforms during 70's. Soviet Union during 90's.

Chinese are particularly concerned about evolution of global economy. It was a highlight of the last congress of Chinese CP, where accent was put on increasing domestic spending.

I don't think China will adopt democracy, but then, more power to them.

Quote:Quote:

The West has "found itself" in the post-WW2 decades and we're adapted for handling social change, while China has never experienced it, except at gunpoint.

West has never experienced change except at gunpoint either. Current system in the west, capitalist parliamentary democracy/republic was founded during French revolution - at gunpoint. European monarchies were annihilated - at gunpoint. New nations were created at gunpoint. Portugal and UK are probably only nations in Europe that evolved towards democracy.

Quote:Quote:

To summarize, the U.S. succeeds in military operations because of cutting-edge technology, a vast military-industrial complex in the homeland, overwhelming political and economic support for the military (similar to Egyptian and Israeli cultures), decades of first-hand experience in large-scale conventional and unconventional warfare, high quality manufacturing of military hardware, a superb higher education system, the worlds largest economy, and the third highest population on earth. We have more allies, while China really has none; Russia is fueled by self-interest, rather than ideological or cultural ties as the US has with Europe.

This is actually the only part of your post that is spot on.

Quote: (11-18-2014 12:40 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

If an ICBM gets launched by another power, I wouldn't be surprised if the US has the capability to destroy them while they are en route.

You shouldn't be. It is. Hence stockpiling of nuclear arsenal. To spamm enemy missile defenses.
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

delete
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

Quote: (06-15-2014 02:54 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Sp5,

I am delighted that we are now getting into the meat of the argument, particularly what I believe is the most interesting point made in my post -- that the true purpose of wars is to create conditions of combat pressure that enable rapid technological progress. I was hoping that someone would address that point, especially by disagreement and dismissal.

As a side note: your surmise about my political views is 100% wrong. To the extent I have such views, I am an old-fashioned 19th century liberal (nothing to do with what "liberal" has come to mean in the US at present). I believe in free markets governed by limited, fair and transparent laws, and minimal government intervention in the lives of people. My political heroes, if I had to name any, are J. S. Mill, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman. I hate fascism, communism, and all statist and authoritarian movements on the left and the right alike. All of the above would be obvious to anyone who read my posts elsewhere on the forum (not that you or anyone else is obliged to do so). So there you have it.

Now that we have gotten this low-level stuff out of the way, we can proceed.

********************

1. What does it mean to say that our true war is the war against materials?

The human being recognizes one fact above all others: that it is different from the materials that surround it, and from which it is made. This is a difference in kind -- the most important difference in kind that we are aware of.

It is hard to understand the nature of this difference -- it does not mean, for example, that the materials of which the human being itself is made are somehow special as such or are governed by special laws. Nevertheless, the difference is there, and it is recognized by everyone.

The existence of sentience in the world of materials is threatened at every turn; the physical shell that embodies sentience can be and is destroyed, either by violent disruptions, or by the slow accumulation of errors and wear and tear that characterizes aging. Eventually, all sentience subsides back into the mere darkness and silence of the materials from which it is made. It is in that sense that a lump of stone can be, metaphorically, seen as the true enemy: it is that which we know to be different in kind from us, by which we are threatened, and to which we (as individuals, but not sentience as a whole) succumb.

Once it is understood that there are two things that are different in kind, one can see that the purpose and meaning of sentience is to extend its control over materials, both the ones that surround it (our environment) and the ones that embody it (our bodies). The linear, progressive, and cumulative nature of the creation of mathematics, science, and technology is the clearest expression of the unceasing and relentless activity of sentience in consolidating and extending its ability to control the merely material and protect itself against it.

2. How can one understand the purpose of wars?

Given that the singular purpose of sentience is to extend its control over materials, how can one understand wars between human beings, in which sentience seems to turn on itself and engage in savage, relentless, and seemingly irrational destruction of its own kind?

I believe that the answer to this is that human beings, who realize instinctively what their purpose is, crave conditions under which the sensation of purposefulness is heightened and pressurized. War provides such a condition as it renders every move and every decision that is made by men immediately and palpably consequential. I believe that this is the source of the intense interest that combat provokes in men: everything you do counts, and the stakes are the highest at all times. It is why war stories of various kinds (and their simulacra in other fields such as sports) are so endlessly captivating; it is why the friendships forged in wars are the deepest of which men are capable. There is nothing that interests men more than the sense of immediate, shared, and urgent purpose.

One can now see how all these things are related. Human sentience recognizes that its purpose is the struggle for control of materials; men, in turn, crave conditions where the struggle is maximized and made manifest in real time; and where it is a matter of life or death at every instant. Because men who have not experienced such conditions are so intensely drawn to them, they seek them out and seek out their creation.

And while the men who participate in wars get more than they bargained for -- and experience on their flesh what materials can really do to humans -- sentience gets what it requires because the pressurized conditions of combat and mobilization catalyze the development of innovative technologies and their rapid and pervasive implementation.

The human individual is (rationally) sluggish and lazy; it is always ready, as an individual, to sag under the weight of materials as it ages, since it knows that in its own life it is destined to decline and die. It is a truth that everyone with any life experience knows, that people are only very good at solving problems if they have skin in the game; and then they can get scarily good, very fast. During peacetime, the way of creating "skin in the game" is money; and money works extremely well -- but it is nothing compared to the ultimate skin in the game -- your own hide, and that of your loved ones and your people. That is sometimes the only way the really tricky problems get figured out; especially in a society that has grown stale, risk-averse, and cowardly as a result of an extended peacetime.

Finally, as far as specifics go, it is naive to itemize particular inventions as being the products of war and others of peacetime, as if these things can be separated. There are no barriers between all areas of human knowledge; different devices are not separate line items that are arrived at one by one. What happens is that a great deal of relatively abstract knowledge gets accumulated during the long lulls of peacetime; but it often takes the pressurized conditions of wartime to effectively remove the practical and engineering obstacles that prevent or delay the rapid conversion of this knowledge into real-life applications. These engineering problems are solved in a pressurized and accelerated manner under combat pressure and in the rebuilding and reorganization during the early peacetime phase following the end of a major conflict.

*****************

All this is not to say that all wars are "good" (which would be absurd), or justified, or that some wars (such as World War I) are not a moral disgrace -- which of course they are. It is also not to say that the pace and impact of technological innovation is the same or equally consequential in all wars. To understand the general point and driving forces behind a complex phenomenon is not the same as to arrive at some simplistic, one-size-fits-all description of all that happens or can happen in its context; life is far too rich and various for that. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the most general features of the landscape first -- both because they can sometimes be the hardest to see because they are always there staring you in the face; and because without understanding the most general features, you cannot orient yourself in the landscape at all.

What an incredible post. I have three unrelated-to-each-other comments.

1. Perhaps the opposite of a man at war, whether for his resources, land, country or more advanced and moral form of society referred to above as free market, could be the able bodied man on welfare. The able bodied man on welfare who chooses not to work (or struggle ) for survival and instead takes the stolen loot of others may be the stale peace's worst man. His brain doesn't innovate, and he is the human opposite of a fighter pilot or code breaker.

2. I recently watched all of the Lord of the Rings movies again I am now of the belief that JRR Tolkien foresaw the invasion of Europe by Africa and the Middle East. This is not an interpretation I believed before nor have I ever seen before. The ring in the stories represents the United Nations which didn't exist at the time but was being discussed. "One ring to rule them all" is what made me believe this. They continually reference the free peoples or free tribes this refers to European nations. The United Nations or the ring in the book allows barbarians to take over Advanced societies ruled by reason and law. The collectivization of these invader people ends in evil but the good guys (European) are not collectivized but are part of distinctive nations. You can easily imagine JRR Tolkien meant Norwegians, Welsh, English, etc with the various heroic groups. Each individual in the free peoples such as the Elves and the Hobbits and Men are each their own moral agent. They are responsible for their actions. Where is the Orcs are simply animals. I now believe that this these books were meant as a warning of a great world war of the West versus the irrational rest which if it is to happen has not happened yet. But maybe the current invasion of Europe is in fact the beginning of what JRR Tolkien predicted.

3. The current military is used as some sort of expedited contractor, or giant shovel and not for real war today. Think of it as a giant road clearer or pipeline route clearer. It's power is used in a very restrained way indeed today.
Reply

The Stale Peace And Its Consequences

A. I think TLOZ has a point about how stale peace contributes to the feminization of America and the West. However I think he exaggerate its role in this feminizing process.
Quote:Quote:

All the phenomena of cultural decline that are so frequently documented on this forum and elsewhere are nothing more than a direct consequence of the idiocy, distraction, and concentration on trivia, that characterize the late, stale peace.

I disagree that there is nothing more. Two other major factors come to mind.

a. Biochemical: As Roosh said in his blog post, the current feminization cannot be solely explained by social condition. Exposure to various Endocrine Disrupting Agents is a major contributing cause. Men's testosterone level won't magically raise to premodern level just because they are under combat pressure. Some improvement in T-level may happen under threat, but it may be insufficient and short-lived.

b. Ideological progression: Our current feminization is not the same as those caused mainly by stale peace in past civilizations. New elements factored in. EDAs are one thing. Another is how our predominant ideology has changed. Most important is the problematic doctrine of human right - the ideological basis of social justice activism - which I had addressed elsewhere.

The doctrine of natural human right is ontologically incompatible with a naturalistic worldview. If you believe that there is no God or divine authority, then you cannot ground human right in the natural order of the world. There is no basis for human right in the laws of physics. It entails that human right is nothing more than a social construct - equal right especially so. Nature isn't equal, and it doesn't care about your right. It only cares about your might and fertility. That some atheists still believe in the objective existence of human right inscribed in some objective moral world order betrays nothing more than the fact that people can simultaneously uphold two contradictory, inconsistent ideas.

This ideology of human right as natural right, however, is enshrined in the US constitution. It is considered self-evident and unquestionable. To deny it would be to reject the very foundation of the US itself.

For a while the early rulers of the US conveniently ignored the logical implication of the doctrine that 'All men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights' for the sake of practical prudence, and hence denied the right to vote of women and the equal standing of blacks. But over time these contractions became clear and impossible to ignore and suppress. That women and minorities must be able to vote are simply the logical conclusion of this doctrine. As Susan B. Anthony put it, Are women persons? They undoubtedly are, so they must be able to vote.

The thing about human right is that, once something has come to be considered a human right, then enacting it becomes a categorical imperative rather than a matter of practical expedience. It ought to be done because it is the right thing to do, and whether it is practical is irrelevant. That is what right is about. It is supposed to be deontological, inviolable and inalienable.

And once society has come to perceive a certain group as possessing personhood and human right, then it's practically impossible to reverse this process without abandoning the sociopolitical framework of human right, without rejecting the very basis of legitimacy of the system itself.

Western society has been increasingly moving left socially since WWII. Partly, and importantly, because social progressivism is the logical conclusion of the doctrine of human right - which inevitably becomes more and more developed, elaborate and encompassing as intellectual/academic activities and activism develop in liberal, affluent societies. Under the spell of this doctrine, society must become increasingly 'inclusive', perceived dehumanization and subhumanization of any group even in the slightest degree become increasingly demonized, more and more rights are recognized - the sphere of human rights inevitably expands over time, and the West burdens itself with more and more shackles, more and more subjecting itself to this 'tyranny of human right'.

Same sex marriage has been recognized as a human right. Many other decadent and feminizing practices will also be recognized as inviolable human rights. Even if the US is nuked, the voting right of women won't be revoked, because doing so would be considered dehumanizing women. Likewise, things same sex marriage won't become illegal. The US may regain a bit of masculinity after the war, but then feminization will be back on its feet quickly, and faster than before.

So, I think the idea that this feminizing process of the Western world can simply be reserved by a major war is naive. Our current society is different from past civilizations in some very fundamental aspects. Even if backroom dealings have great influence on political decision-making, that still doesn't change the important fact that the framework of what constitutes Legitimacy has significantly changed, more acutely in the West than anywhere else - which put definite constraints on public policy and legal decision-makings, resulting in real social changes. This change is more or less organic after the introduction of the concept of human right in the West, and there can be no simple/natural return to the past (in which women can't vote and gays can't marry and so on).

In countries that remains opposed to Western values, such as China, the idea of human right has not taken deep root. People there still take it very superficially. 'Violating human right' sounds horrific and utterly heinous to people in the West, but does not offend ordinary people elsewhere nearly to the same extent. China government in particular takes the red pill view that human rights are socially determined, and it has the right the determine what is human right and what is not in accordance with its practical interest. Some might quibble that the Chinese are 'spiritually barren' in their ruthless pragmatism, materialistic greed and relentless drive upward, desiring ever more wealth and power and status - but how exactly does that put them at a disadvantage in a race for technological and military superiority is unclear.

Usually, when a civilization undergoes feminization, as a result of prosperous stale peace or something else, it does not get back up but collapse within itself and get taken out by barbarian outsiders. How can we sure that the US will escape this fate and that the cold, brutal, 'spiritually barren' Chinese 'technocratic thugs' won't take upon this barbarian role? The barbarians won against rotting civilization not because they are 'morally superior' or more sustained by 'moral structure born of civilized values', but because they are more brutal, more motivated and energetic, more in touch with their primal instincts. After winning they may become more civilized, and become the new bearer of moral standard.

(This is in reference to Quintus Curtius's musing that "China, for all of its supposed economic “prowess,” will never be a truly great global power. Man needs a spiritual center, a moral structure born of civilized values, to sustain him. Without this, he is nothing but an avaricious barbarian.")

B. It's far from obvious that the US will prevail in a nuclear exchange with China by the time it actually happens. Nothing ensures that the US will maintain its technological and thereby military superiority forever, or even by the time the war happens.

a. China is increasing its nuclear power. It's very probable that its nuclear stockpile will surpass America's at some point.

Study: U.S. "Losing Ground" To Russia And China On Nuclear Power

Quote:Quote:

Approving new nuclear reactors takes as little as two years in China and Russia, but getting regulatory approval in the U.S. to build a new reactor can take up to 25 years. It took 43 years to build America’s newest nuclear reactor, which was racked by scandals, red tape and environmental concerns.

Quote:Quote:

The U.S. is losing global influence to Russia and China by allowing its nuclear power industry to stagnate, according to a new study by the Global Nexus Initiative.

The study argued nuclear power is a significant element of a country’s geopolitical influence. Technological exchanges and long timeframes involved in building and operating a nuclear plant create diplomatic relationships between nations, and those ties are threatened as the U.S. nuclear industry continues to decline.

“China is poised to become the Amazon.com of nuclear commerce,” Kenneth Luongo, president of the Partnership for Global Security, said during a press conference Tuesday. “The U.S. is losing ground to Russia and China on nuclear power.”

Researchers from the Partnership for Global Security and the industry-funded Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) conducted the study.

China is set to triple the amount of nuclear power it generates by 2026, overtaking the U.S. as the country with the most nuclear power. China plans to spend $570 billion building more than 60 nuclear power plants over the next decade.
...
Worldwide installed nuclear capacity is expected to grow 60 percent by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency. American capacity will likely only grow by 16 percent over the same time period.

“Preserving the existing [U.S.] fleet is also fundamental to achieve these goals,” Korsnick said. “Without the existing fleet and the associated infrastructure it will be increasingly difficult for technological innovation to occur or to maintain a robust supply chain for our nuclear navy.”


China's national Academy of Sciences recently announced that it just made a Technological Breakthrough That Raises Nuclear Fuel Utilization Rate: below 1% to 95%.

b. China leads in supercomputing. It has two of the world's fastest supercomputers, and is expected to complete world's first exascale supercomputer this year.

NSA, DOE say China's supercomputing advances put U.S. at risk


Chinese supercomputers threaten U.S. security


Quote:Quote:

“National security requires the best computing available, and loss of leadership in [high-performance computing] will severely compromise our national security,” the report warns.
Supercomputers play a “vital role” in the design, development and analysis of almost all modern weapons systems, including nuclear weapons, cyberwarfare capabilities, ships, aircraft, communications security, missile defense, precision-strike capabilities and hypersonic weapons, the report said.
China is rapidly developing hypersonic strike missiles that can deliver conventional and nuclear payloads by maneuvering past advanced missile defenses.
“Loss of leadership in [high-performance computing] could significantly reduce the U.S. nuclear deterrence and the sophistication of our future weapons systems,” the report says.

“Conversely, if China fields a weapons system with new capabilities based on superior [high-performance computing], and the U.S. cannot accurately estimate its true capabilities, there is a serious possibility of over- or underestimating the threat.”

With China producing 4.7 million STEM graduates each year, the US probably won't be able to close this gap in supercomputing power any time soon with only 0.5 million STEM graduates each year, a significant portion of which are international students. In fact, it's more likely that the gap will widen.

China's missile defense is strong and will get stronger as it makes more technological advances, which has been its focus in the couple of recent years.

What this all pose for future nuclear warfare is highly complex and beyond our ability to predict. The anxious assumption of knowledge in this domain reflects the fear and prejudice of the predictors [Image: smile.gif].

One thing to keep in mind is that China has 4 times the population of the US. If each side manages to kill 300 million lives of the other side by nuke, then China would still be fundamentally strong while the US would be crippled. (While China has a demographic problem, as an authoritarian regime it is equipped with far more tools to solve this problem than democracies like Japan and the US)

C. It's not even certain that the war will happen in the foreseeable future.
Quote:Quote:

At some point, when the Chinese come to believe -- incorrectly -- that they are ready, they will directly challenge US military supremacy in the Pacific.

And how exactly will the trained engineers who run Beijing misestimate the technological and military capacity balance/dynamics between the two, while the lawyers who run Washington won't?
--
China is an authoritarian bureaucracy. The decision making of the technocratic elites won't be swayed by hotheaded young men demonstrating on the street. They call for rational patriotism, which shows they know very well that direct conflict is not their desired optimal outcomes.

The Belt and Roads initiative indicate that they plans to expand their influence peacefully. They need their neighbors to co-operate with them to carry it out smoothly. Even the Vietnamese government has mostly smoothed out with China on the South China Sea disputes - both sides prefer to maintain the status quo rather than escalating conflicts.

China has been wooing countries that was frustrated by Trump leaving the TPP and Paris accord. It's also widening its friend circle through OBOR. We can expect its allies to increase in the future.

Considering the huge risk of nuclear warfare, I hope it won't happen and don't expect it will, at least in the foreseeable future.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)