All of that said, though, China is still ascendant (their house of cards is showing signs of weakness, but it has not tumbled yet), while their main geopolitical rival (which is having trouble with an authoritarian, antidemocratic political party of its own) is showing signs of decline, especially as real wages continue to fall for all but a select few and large swaths of the population turn away from objective reality. It is impossible to say how this will all play out in the coming decades, but the continuation of western hegemony is far from guaranteed.
3 Likes
of course it is a contention. an opinion even. it’s largely based on what does “good”, “helpful”, “wise”, etc. mean. it’s also based on what “self-sustaining” means.
maybe modern technology has pushed us to the point where autocracies and centralized rule is possible again. if so, china isn’t going to be the only such nation because they aren’t magic. they’re human, just like everyone else. and there’s no “one right way to win the world”
sure all of that’s opinion, but it’s based on a fairly solid foundation
yeah. nobody has ever thought to exploit a population for it’s resources and/or labor before.
they’re not even doing anything original that any other group with power and influence does.
it’s same old, same old. it’s not like we haven’t had oil wars for generations, while simultaneously corrupting entire nations economies. it’s not like the world bank doesn’t put nations in debt to us for generations. and on. and on.
has been allowing capital to run rampant. nobody wins when the oligarchs fight. and especially not when it ends with “their” people fighting “our” people ( and vice versa )
Maybe their intent is to creep us the fuck out, waste a few billion in trying to figure it out and draw our attention to the desert while their real business is else altogether…
This would also have taken a generation more, increasing the Chinese population by several hundred million people. Whether or not that would have been sustainable is hard to say, but you have to consider the possibility that the hard population break of the one child policy was a necessity.
Europe could deal with its population explosion by conquering other continents, sending its extra population there. China doesn’t have that option.
It would be a jawesome paintball course.
3 Likes
The South China Morning Post is a Hong Kong newspaper, now owned by mainland Chinese tech company Alibaba Group. The Hong Kong media are not (yet) subject to the same level of censorship as in mainland China.
3 Likes
All adjectives whose meaning varies according to one’s position - i.e. all subjective. What China finds good, helpful or wise, in practice (as opposed to generic definitions of those terms) differ from the practical things you think qualify as those things. Although I fundamentally disagree with (and despise) the Chinese regime, I can see that its actions are helpful or good or wise within its own frame of reference (.e. relating to its own objectives). And for all that I despise its goals and intentions I can admire its ability to develop long-term plans and execute them.
And the CCP has been self-sustaining longer than most other regimes.
Did I say it was original? What’s your point?
Strongly agreed. What’s that got to do with China?
I simply said that China plays a very long game - it plans decades into the future. It has the political structure to deliver on those plans and adapt them as reality changes. Most in the West choose to ignore this or not take it seriously as far as I can see. You keep arguing but I can’t see where you actually disagree with any of that.
I implied that China was planning further into the future and with more long-term strategic intent than other countries. That seems to be a point you initially disagreed with, simply by saying other countries are the same.
I disagreed - and stated what I had earlier implied…
…and offered examples of some Chinese long-term strategic action. You have not disagreed with that statement as far as I can see, whilst making a range of comments that are negative about China - some of which I agree with.
1 Like
Yep, say “military secret” to me and watch me NOT keep a straight face.
1 Like
In the grand scheme of things, that applies to most developed countries. At least when compared to China.
The Aral Sea drying up to nothing accounts for some of it.
1 Like
I think it is a safe bet that they don’t publish national security information without approval from the mainland. And that’s what this is. I didn’t posit that just because the paper has “China” in their name, but because of allegations that it has lost the political independence it once had, allegations you can also find in the Wiki you linked to.
1 Like
Reminds me of things that have lasted a lot longer than the tech they were supposed to hide, like the “carrrots improve your eyesight” explanation to hide radar in WW2 england.
3 Likes
I got an C- for a book report on that very subject in 5th grade, alas, the teacher was a “carrot lover”.
4 Likes
4 Likes
Using aircraft carriers to project power on weaker nations is sort of what they are for about 98% of the time. One can bomb a place to rubble with less risk to troops on the ground and also know that the bombed have no recourse against your very well defended aircraft platform. Apparently it makes people in the US, UK, Canada and elsewhere feel good to drop bombs on places once in awhile (Something must be done! We have done Something! Hooray!)
Not that bombing places to rubble actually accomplishes anything, but it keeps the bomb makers happy and that’s a thing. The great victories in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. are all testament to the great utility of airplanes and aircraft carrier platforms to the makers and manufacturers of bombs.
Obviously any country who can foresee a circumstance where the US (in particular) and allies might choose to play bombers on that country’s home turf is going to make some effort to neutralize that threat. Having every gazillion dollar carrier that comes in range go down in bubbles might be a very effective way to do that.
*I suspect fewer aircraft carriers involved in bombing Afghanistan, but the same outcome nonetheless. Lots of bombs dropped, lots of people died, nothing remotely like victory, and lots of rich armaments manufacturers.
Pearl Harbor was not the death of the battleship, but WWII was definitely the end of battleships being seen as the primary tool of navies.
1 Like
Carrier-based aircraft were used quite a bit in Afghanistan.
The United States Navy aircraft carrier USS Enterprise with an eight-ship and submarine task group, followed by USS Carl Vinson with nine other ships and submarines, deployed for operations over Afghanistan at different stages to the end of 2002. USS Theodore Roosevelt with an 11-ship and submarine task group also deployed. Additionally, USS George Washington was deployed from 20 June 2002 until 20 December 2002 in support of Operation Southern Watch, and Operation Enduring Freedom.
2 Likes
1 Like
Wait a minute a naval warship in the middle of the desert i know what’s going on here
