zig, I can tell you the only threat China poses is its sheer numbers. They have the numbers to over run us in a one on one fight. But as far as implementing technology with their fighting force. They would get their asses handed to them. We can strike them without having anyone in the area. We can hit them so hard and so fast with the type of technology we have and have coming out we'd be long gone before they came out of their daze.
Its a good thing when strategists say "oh their a threat" because its the only thing convincing Congress to continue funding national security projects. There has been a number of wars the US has been involved in in the past that we werent prepared for. Why? because we were cocky and assumed no one was a threat. We thought wrong and paid dearly for it on a number of occasions. Its better to be safe then sorry.
While I dont believe their the threat they are made out to be. I understand why theyre considered a threat. Because they have the potential to hurt us if we didnt go in prepared.
If this is true, that means Fascism partially wins because Fascism is by definition corporatist. Not that that is bad thing. It may be though. The Brazilian Integralists were anti-racist fascists.
As for China, they are reasonably advanced, but it is likely that the U.S leaves them for dead in the technology department. However, better technology doesn't always equal win and the fact that China has never faught a modern full scale conventional war which makes an outcome hard to predict. Also, China is very secretive so they may have better tech then most think, so they gap between China's and the US's may be smaller.
The US would likely win a war with China, but it could never secure a victory over China as there is no way that the US could hold China down. Occupation is out of the question.
Before WWII, the US thought that Japanese had planes made of tin cans and that Japanese soldiers were scrawny cowards. That couldn't be further from the truth. The Japanese thought that the US was a clumsy giant with no stomach for war. This was wrong also. The US won which means that it can afford to make big mistakes. Japan had no such margin for error. I've heard of the US being compared to the Lernaean Hydra from Greek mythology. Everytime a head gets chopped off, two more grow back. Tremendous resources and rebuilding capacity usually equals win.
The US is so much stronger then the other countries, that I doubt that another country will grow to rival the US. It seems more likely, that the US will decline so that there is several second-rate powers all seeking dominance rather then any true superpower. This is made more likely if the US fights a few more Afghanistan or Vietnam-style wars because these types of conflicts are running sores that can eventually sap a superpower of its strength.
Your assuming occupation is out of the question because of its sheer size. And your wrong. Most of the population lives along the coast. Most of the inner countryside is desolate and hardly anyone lives out there. The US could just ignore everything other then the coast and still occupy the country of China.
Were still capable of a FULL victory. And not all wars require you to occupy something.
The country of China is assbackwards in how it runs its economy. The population is for the most part poor. While there are a few uber rich. This is how China has operated for millenia's and time and time again rebellion has refreshed the country but it always lands back in the same boat.
China is starting to catch up. But only in certian fields. It doesnt have the capacity to implement technology into its Military fully. And probably never will. China prides itself on size. Which means most of its own military funding is locked up in upkeep rather then expansion.
The US wins its wars because its finally realized that for its Armed Forces to be a true threat it has to be a threat at all times. Which means funding new projects that give the US the edge. The ColdWar is what brought this revelation about.
Vietnam was far more of a success then you might realize. The biggest reason for its downfall was public opinion. It was painted as a war of bloodshed (like wars before hand had never seen death) and that Soldiers were murdering villagers for the hell of it (it happened, but it wasnt the first time in war) WW2 saw entire cities flattened...cities meaning civilian populace. Meaning Civilian casualties. Civilians dying during war is nothing new, and can be seen all the way back to the first days of what we classify as War.
Afghanistan hasnt sapped us of any power. Infact its testing us and giving us the ability to adapt to a different form of guerilla warfare we werent expecting. This can only be good for our Armed Forces as it widens the scope of our troops adaptability and our use of technology.
What seems to people as sapping is how much money was spent. Because it was in the billions. But people forget that whats 1 Billion now was Millions 50+ years ago. Because the worth of money only increases with time. We think were spending WAY more money then ever before. Which is and isnt true.
Iraq hurt us, but only because currently only 1+ million of 300 million serve this nation. Making our ability to place our military might limited. But that came and gone. Iraq is now back in the hands of the Iraqis. Only 6 short years after invasion.
Because of the fierce fighting and antiinsurgency tactics and strategies developed and learned in Iraq. We can now turn back to Afghanistan and adjust them. The main reason Afghanistan has taken longer to overcome. Is because Iraq was so unpopular and pressure was far greater for us to resolve it.
People for the most part still believe Afghanistan is a good fight. So the pressure to succeed there like we did in Iraq isnt as high. While we want it to be over. We still remember why were there in the first place. Meaning were still willing to take our time with it. Unlike Iraq where we had no real clue why we were there. And wanted every reason to pull out.
Totally unlike America.
I think that bickering over whether or not America is superior is a bit pointless. While we may be the most powerful country and our society covers the face of the Earth we need to realize that we are all Human Beings and that our religious, political, and territorial differences only divide us. We must unite to advance for only then can true progress be made. I understand the necessity to preserve a national identity, but greed cannot be a driving force in the policy of nations. A compromise can always be reached. Consider Korea. Greed drove its leaders to compete for total domination of the country. Greed drives corporations to outsell its competitors, greed drives countries to complain and bicker and fight over who owns what. While the desire to get ahead will always be a part of human nature, and has often proven so effective in developing new ideas and new technologies, it cannot be allowed to influence how others treat others, along with nationalism and extremism. I think that the United Nations is an excellent move towards this, as in the United States Congress in how it is divided. We still have a long ways to go but we have made excellent progress. Always remember that our species has always been divided on this planet into clans, into cities, into states, into nations but that we must reach out into the stars united or planet to planet, solar system to solar system wars will rage once more until we have left the galaxy a smoldering ruin of what it once was.
If you don't want the country to become a threat again in a few years, occupation is a necessaty. Thats why Germany was occupied and Japan still is.
If the Chinese feel "we were beaten, its over and we have had enough" then the US can occupy the country without any hassles. If the Chinese peasants are angry becuase they hate the occupiers, then imagine Afghanistan on a scale several hundred thousand times as large.
Latin proverb: "The conquered mourns, the conqueror is undone."
There is very many people in the Chinese countryside and any one of those peasants could a geurilla fighter. Dealing with an insurgency of a hundred million fighters is impractical.
China is a far bigger long term threat as a peaceful nation than a active war monger. Do the math, economically they win and we lose, a war would distrupt that. As for occupation, America using WMDs to win are completely out of the question. China's human resources are almost unlimited by comparison.
A possibly far greater threat than China is America losing much of its sovereignty to global government, the new world order, globaliztion or in other words change. Change is America's greatest enemy. Change is already proving to be too destructive in our current state of affairs with the inability to adapt to it both foreign and domestically. This Change is not proving to be a Change for the better.
No. Eventually Australia will create an army of Genetically enhanced Kangaroos and kill everything... Then we'll have a bbq to celebrate!
Criminy! I hope we won't be grilling up the genetically enhanced roos, that could turn real ugly.
Genetically enhanced roo meat with sauce... Just like mum used to make
The United States will not remain a super power, but it's in no where near collapsing. You'll see China continue to shoot forward, but they cannot grow forever with an authoritarian government. Put too much power in too few people and they are bound to make a really, really wrong decision. They're bound to derail sooner or later. You don't get as much done in a democracy or very quickly, but it is very, very resiliant and war weary.
Read Fareed Zakaria's Post American World. It's an excellent book which forecasts the rise of China and India along side the United States.
If America wants to remain a superpower, it needs to ditch Obama and the Dems who want to turn us into Eurosocialists, it needs to drastically reduce its debt and deficit spending, and it needs to step far, far away from cap-and-trade. Europe can cap their carbon, and we can go ahead and outproduce them.
Lol, eurosocialists. Like I said in another post, independant studies in demographics has shown that the "eurosocialists" have a higher per capita human development rating than we do. But let's not be like the "eurosocialists."
Oh, you mean Eurosocialists like Greece, Italy, and Poland who have such huge debt and deficits it's going to seriously mess with the Euro? Yeah, great idea.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.