A
Anonymous
Guest
China won't seize India, they have both started friendly negotiations.
China, USA, and the next war
- Thread starter IronDuke
- Start date
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Jul 26 2005, 08:40 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Jul 26 2005, 08:40 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]China won't seize India, they have both started friendly negotiations.
ALL empires expanded through negotiations, wars were used when the opposition was too stubborn. Take the U.S for example, they bought, Louisiana and Florida, Negotiated Texas and it wasn't until western expansion that major wars between Mexico and Native Americans took place. Same with Rome, USSR.... etc.
[snapback]113175[/snapback]
[/quote]ALL empires expanded through negotiations, wars were used when the opposition was too stubborn. Take the U.S for example, they bought, Louisiana and Florida, Negotiated Texas and it wasn't until western expansion that major wars between Mexico and Native Americans took place. Same with Rome, USSR.... etc.
China would never invade anyone in the formal sense, especially Russia. Why? Russia has nukes.
It doesn't matter what else happens to military strength or national product. The existence of a few nuclear weapons (which Russia still has the capicity to build anew at any time) is enough to stop anything except diplomacy.
Nuclear weapons ae the great equalizer. If Russia can launch a missle on any Chinese city, there will never be war between the two nations. They know it will lead to their mutual destruction.
Pakistan and India will never fight another all-out war, because all it would lead to nukes being launched at New Delhi and Islamabad. They'll do everything they can to avoid that.
Simplified:
Nuclear states will always have a healthy respect for one another, and look to work together to limit the chance of a war amongst them.
Relations between non-nuclear and nuclear states will be unchanged as well, because there will always be another nuclear power ready to back up the non-nuclear state
(ie - Americans backing the Afghanis against the USSR in the 1980s). This will stop the use of nukes in that case.
Nuclear weapons are like the feathers on a peacock. They are for scaring an opponant so you never have to actually fight them. They are no good for an actual war, because their use will precipitate them being used against you.
The end.
It doesn't matter what else happens to military strength or national product. The existence of a few nuclear weapons (which Russia still has the capicity to build anew at any time) is enough to stop anything except diplomacy.
Nuclear weapons ae the great equalizer. If Russia can launch a missle on any Chinese city, there will never be war between the two nations. They know it will lead to their mutual destruction.
Pakistan and India will never fight another all-out war, because all it would lead to nukes being launched at New Delhi and Islamabad. They'll do everything they can to avoid that.
Simplified:
Nuclear states will always have a healthy respect for one another, and look to work together to limit the chance of a war amongst them.
Relations between non-nuclear and nuclear states will be unchanged as well, because there will always be another nuclear power ready to back up the non-nuclear state
(ie - Americans backing the Afghanis against the USSR in the 1980s). This will stop the use of nukes in that case.
Nuclear weapons are like the feathers on a peacock. They are for scaring an opponant so you never have to actually fight them. They are no good for an actual war, because their use will precipitate them being used against you.
The end.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
[!--QuoteBegin-IronDuke+Jul 27 2005, 12:57 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Jul 27 2005, 12:57 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Nuclear weapons are like the feathers on a peacock. They are for scaring an opponant so you never have to actually fight them. They are no good for an actual war, because their use will precipitate them being used against you.
The end.
That is a horrible example duke [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]. Feathers on a male peacock are to attract the opposite sex, not to scare off anybody, unless you are talking about the female peacocks which are very Fugly.
The end.
[snapback]113190[/snapback]
[/quote]That is a horrible example duke [!--emo&
--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]. Feathers on a male peacock are to attract the opposite sex, not to scare off anybody, unless you are talking about the female peacocks which are very Fugly.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I just read half an article in Fortune magazine where once again the topic is China and the United States. However here the focus wasn't so much on the countries but on the people. The question the magazine was focusing on wasn't "Can the U.S compete?" but, "Can Americans (U.S citizens) compete?" I did not like the framing of the article at all. It was saying that the U.S will suffer because its secondary and high school is failing (true) and that it is outputting less University grads than the thrid world... not entirely true. The article claimed that the Third world like Mexico, Brazil and India are starting to educate and specialize their people in greater numbers than the U.S. They said that China will have 3.3 Million College grads in 2006, India 1.3 million while the U.S will only have a measly 70,000.
Now, that SOUNDS frightening but what the article fails to mention is that China's population is one of 1.3 Billion, India's is 1.1 Billion and the U.S' has only 293 million. Well NO WONDER They'll output more grads, they have WAY more people! So my assesment is that while the U.S does need to revamp it's public education system (its Universities are still pretty much top notch, yet VERY expensive) They don't have to freak out over what in the end is a numbers game.
Now, that SOUNDS frightening but what the article fails to mention is that China's population is one of 1.3 Billion, India's is 1.1 Billion and the U.S' has only 293 million. Well NO WONDER They'll output more grads, they have WAY more people! So my assesment is that while the U.S does need to revamp it's public education system (its Universities are still pretty much top notch, yet VERY expensive) They don't have to freak out over what in the end is a numbers game.