China Building Island in Disputed Waters (161)
DertyHarry44: not yet Vietnam and Japan are watching along with Sam and Putin
DertyHarry ,, China and Russia tandem is on the go ,,,
The present situation in trilateral U.S.-Chinese-Russian relations is at odds with the strategy articulated by Henry Kissinger during the Nixon Administration, which held that American relations with either Russia or China had to be substantially better than the bilateral relations between Russia and China themselves. Today the opposite is occurring. U.S. relations with either of the other two countries are considerably worse than bilateral Russia-China relations. Therefore, the potential for America pitting one against the other is decidedly smaller than the potential of the two countries uniting their efforts and resources to oppose American pressure in the spheres each country considers most sensitive
------ This thread is Archived ------
tomcatwarne: Pre emptive surprise attack total emasculation in one GO
Blitzkrieg attack.. only of course when it warrants the waging of a global war.------ This thread is Archived ------
Lolette: DertyHarry ,, China and Russia tandem is on the go ,,,
The present situation in trilateral U.S.-Chinese-Russian relations is at odds with the strategy articulated by Henry Kissinger during the Nixon Administration, which held that American relations with either Russia or China had to be substantially better than the bilateral relations between Russia and China themselves. Today the opposite is occurring. U.S. relations with either of the other two countries are considerably worse than bilateral Russia-China relations. Therefore, the potential for America pitting one against the other is decidedly smaller than the potential of the two countries uniting their efforts and resources to oppose American pressure in the spheres each country considers most sensitive
The present situation in trilateral U.S.-Chinese-Russian relations is at odds with the strategy articulated by Henry Kissinger during the Nixon Administration, which held that American relations with either Russia or China had to be substantially better than the bilateral relations between Russia and China themselves. Today the opposite is occurring. U.S. relations with either of the other two countries are considerably worse than bilateral Russia-China relations. Therefore, the potential for America pitting one against the other is decidedly smaller than the potential of the two countries uniting their efforts and resources to oppose American pressure in the spheres each country considers most sensitive
Pfui. Kissinger's strategy was for Mao's China and the USSR. We never had a China Russia strategy. Any pretense otherwise foolishly ignores the differences between Mao's China and little Russia vs the big USSR.
So of course we don't follow the Mao's China vs Papa Bear in the USSR strategy. Those two entities no longer exist. What is left is laughable shadows of what they were. Quite bluntly those two yapping dogs are not worthy of strategies. A simple broom stick will do if needed.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Obstinance_Works: Absolutely. A war with China would be a better thing to happen for Britain and the West than it would the Chinese. We can't beat them in the workplace, we can't beat them in tests, we can't beat them educationally, financially, socially or in any other way but war.
Before the Baby Boomers the West was the best in the world at nearly everything, but now the only relevant skill they kept is how to kill people en masse.
Before the Baby Boomers the West was the best in the world at nearly everything, but now the only relevant skill they kept is how to kill people en masse.
If the occidentals could have the possibility to win now?, it won't be in a year from now, a year of preparatory and perfectioning their defense could entirely change the phase of your argument, it's a thing not to wish for, China will take care of the pacific coast fronting USA/ASIA, Russia will take care of Europe,, and North Korea on the reserve,
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ken_19: Pfui. Kissinger's strategy was for Mao's China and the USSR. We never had a China Russia strategy. Any pretense otherwise foolishly ignores the differences between Mao's China and little Russia vs the big USSR.
So of course we don't follow the Mao's China vs Papa Bear in the USSR strategy. Those two entities no longer exist. What is left is laughable shadows of what they were. Quite bluntly those two yapping dogs are not worthy of strategies. A simple broom stick will do if needed.
So of course we don't follow the Mao's China vs Papa Bear in the USSR strategy. Those two entities no longer exist. What is left is laughable shadows of what they were. Quite bluntly those two yapping dogs are not worthy of strategies. A simple broom stick will do if needed.
ken,
Will the Chinese-Russian “strategic entente” endure? Despite some skepticism in the international community, there are reasons to believe that it will. For one thing, Moscow’s perceptions of its own weakness have been largely responsible for its move to improve ties with Beijing, and those perceptions will last for as long as the Russian economy flounders.
Moreover, the Chinese, for their part, will value their Russian friends more as time progresses. At the moment, the opposite is thought to be true in some quarters, that Beijing will see less and less value in a declining Russia and that a China owning the twenty-first century will not need Moscow except perhaps as a source of oil and gas, which it will be forced to sell the Chinese whether or not they are friendly.
Just as Russian economic weakness is driving Putin toward the Chinese, it is also making Russia attractive to a China that finds it hard to form alliances but nonetheless realizes it needs friends, even distant ones. President Obama’s critics may see his “pivot” to Asia as “unresourced” and “hollow,” but for the Chinese it is real and an unmistakable warning that Washington is beginning to reevaluate overly generous China policies. In Putin, Beijing’s policymakers not only see someone who shares their general outlook and is willing to poke Washington in the eye, but also someone with enough of a sense of history to accept the role of pliable junior partner. Last decade, it was Putin who kept the Chinese at arm’s length. In the last couple of years, however, he has adopted a far more conciliatory attitude. As he said of Beijing in April 2012, “We do not have a single irritating element in our ties.
------ This thread is Archived ------
tomcatwarne: Military & Defense More: Britain China Military
PROFESSOR: Here's Why Britain's Military Could Beat China
GUS LUBIN
China's armed forces makes a lot of headlines these days, with 2.3 million active military personnel and the world's second largest defense budget. Some people, like the bloggers at Global Firepower, take this to mean that China has the world's third most powerful military, behind the U.S. and Russia and followed by India and Britain. But this thankfully abstract debate is far from settled, and one top authority says that China's military is still inferior to little Britain with its 224,500 active military personnel.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of UK Defence Policy Studies at the renowned Royal United Services Institute, says Britain would have a clear advantage in a straight fight at an equidistant location.
Chalmers described the modern paradigm in a widely reported 2011 article:
The UK will never again be a member of the select club of global superpowers. Indeed it has not been one for decades. But currently planned levels of defence spending should be enough for it to maintain its position as one of the world’s five second-rank military powers (with only the US in the first rank), as well as being (with France) one of NATO-Europe’s two leading military powers. Its edge – not least its qualitative edge – in relation to rising Asian powers seems set to erode, but will remain significant well into the 2020’s, and possibly beyond.
We recently contacted Chalmers to ask if this paradigm still held and to elaborate on how Britain could beat China.
He wrote back:
I think my 2011 comment remains valid. If you take individual elements of front line military capability – air, sea, land — the UK armed forces continue to outmatch those of China in qualitative terms by some margin. The UK also has greater capabilities for getting the most out of these forces, through key enabling capabilities (command and control, intelligence, strategic transport).
Not least, the UK has greater capability than China for operating at range. China (and even more so other Asian powers) remain focused on their immediate neighbourhoods, with limited capabilities for power projection. This is likely to change over the next decade. For now, though, China would still be out-matched qualitatively in a ‘straight fight’ with the UK in an equidistant location (the south Atlantic? The Gulf?), and would be unable to mobilise a force big enough to outweigh this quality gap. China's quantitative advantages would come into play in the event of a conflict in its own neighbourhood – and its qualitative weaknesses would be less important, though still significant. So my statement was never meant to imply that the UK could outmatch China off the latter’s own coastline.
Britain's military power comes at a high cost, namely $61 billion, the fourth highest defense budget in the world behind the U.S. ($683 billion), China ($166 billion), and Russia ($91 billion).
PROFESSOR: Here's Why Britain's Military Could Beat China
GUS LUBIN
China's armed forces makes a lot of headlines these days, with 2.3 million active military personnel and the world's second largest defense budget. Some people, like the bloggers at Global Firepower, take this to mean that China has the world's third most powerful military, behind the U.S. and Russia and followed by India and Britain. But this thankfully abstract debate is far from settled, and one top authority says that China's military is still inferior to little Britain with its 224,500 active military personnel.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, director of UK Defence Policy Studies at the renowned Royal United Services Institute, says Britain would have a clear advantage in a straight fight at an equidistant location.
Chalmers described the modern paradigm in a widely reported 2011 article:
The UK will never again be a member of the select club of global superpowers. Indeed it has not been one for decades. But currently planned levels of defence spending should be enough for it to maintain its position as one of the world’s five second-rank military powers (with only the US in the first rank), as well as being (with France) one of NATO-Europe’s two leading military powers. Its edge – not least its qualitative edge – in relation to rising Asian powers seems set to erode, but will remain significant well into the 2020’s, and possibly beyond.
We recently contacted Chalmers to ask if this paradigm still held and to elaborate on how Britain could beat China.
He wrote back:
I think my 2011 comment remains valid. If you take individual elements of front line military capability – air, sea, land — the UK armed forces continue to outmatch those of China in qualitative terms by some margin. The UK also has greater capabilities for getting the most out of these forces, through key enabling capabilities (command and control, intelligence, strategic transport).
Not least, the UK has greater capability than China for operating at range. China (and even more so other Asian powers) remain focused on their immediate neighbourhoods, with limited capabilities for power projection. This is likely to change over the next decade. For now, though, China would still be out-matched qualitatively in a ‘straight fight’ with the UK in an equidistant location (the south Atlantic? The Gulf?), and would be unable to mobilise a force big enough to outweigh this quality gap. China's quantitative advantages would come into play in the event of a conflict in its own neighbourhood – and its qualitative weaknesses would be less important, though still significant. So my statement was never meant to imply that the UK could outmatch China off the latter’s own coastline.
Britain's military power comes at a high cost, namely $61 billion, the fourth highest defense budget in the world behind the U.S. ($683 billion), China ($166 billion), and Russia ($91 billion).
Tom from this information it is clear that China is not on the prime shell in comparison to UK, yet if you look at the build up of their recent forge on money matters, I believe Conrad73 once presented the latest union of the two in terms of monetary banking?
I'm not sure but strategically like Ken mentioned on the relevance of one island to reach china's annihilation. Philippines would become an valuable location to initiate such a call.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Obstinance_Works: Absolutely. A war with China would be a better thing to happen for Britain and the West than it would the Chinese. We can't beat them in the workplace, we can't beat them in tests, we can't beat them educationally, financially, socially or in any other way but war.
Before the Baby Boomers the West was the best in the world at nearly everything, but now the only relevant skill they kept is how to kill people en masse.
Before the Baby Boomers the West was the best in the world at nearly everything, but now the only relevant skill they kept is how to kill people en masse.
I'm not sure if totally China is ready for this provocation but it sure leads to a lot of speculation.
Now that position can make the Philippines a total war zone.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Lolette: Ouch ,,, Lindsy,, a lot of bombs could alite in the Philippines,, destruction of military bases in one of the important phase ,, pity the Phils.
Assuming that the world is ready for this drama, we might as well say goodbye to our earth.
Philippines for sure will be wiped out of the sea. And that's the real objective of c China which is really dumb as the world will surely end. IMO.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Lolette: ken,
Will the Chinese-Russian “strategic entente” endure? Despite some skepticism in the international community, there are reasons to believe that it will. For one thing, Moscow’s perceptions of its own weakness have been largely responsible for its move to improve ties with Beijing, and those perceptions will last for as long as the Russian economy flounders.
Moreover, the Chinese, for their part, will value their Russian friends more as time progresses. At the moment, the opposite is thought to be true in some quarters, that Beijing will see less and less value in a declining Russia and that a China owning the twenty-first century will not need Moscow except perhaps as a source of oil and gas, which it will be forced to sell the Chinese whether or not they are friendly.
Just as Russian economic weakness is driving Putin toward the Chinese, it is also making Russia attractive to a China that finds it hard to form alliances but nonetheless realizes it needs friends, even distant ones. President Obama’s critics may see his “pivot” to Asia as “unresourced” and “hollow,” but for the Chinese it is real and an unmistakable warning that Washington is beginning to reevaluate overly generous China policies. In Putin, Beijing’s policymakers not only see someone who shares their general outlook and is willing to poke Washington in the eye, but also someone with enough of a sense of history to accept the role of pliable junior partner. Last decade, it was Putin who kept the Chinese at arm’s length. In the last couple of years, however, he has adopted a far more conciliatory attitude. As he said of Beijing in April 2012, “We do not have a single irritating element in our ties.
Will the Chinese-Russian “strategic entente” endure? Despite some skepticism in the international community, there are reasons to believe that it will. For one thing, Moscow’s perceptions of its own weakness have been largely responsible for its move to improve ties with Beijing, and those perceptions will last for as long as the Russian economy flounders.
Moreover, the Chinese, for their part, will value their Russian friends more as time progresses. At the moment, the opposite is thought to be true in some quarters, that Beijing will see less and less value in a declining Russia and that a China owning the twenty-first century will not need Moscow except perhaps as a source of oil and gas, which it will be forced to sell the Chinese whether or not they are friendly.
Just as Russian economic weakness is driving Putin toward the Chinese, it is also making Russia attractive to a China that finds it hard to form alliances but nonetheless realizes it needs friends, even distant ones. President Obama’s critics may see his “pivot” to Asia as “unresourced” and “hollow,” but for the Chinese it is real and an unmistakable warning that Washington is beginning to reevaluate overly generous China policies. In Putin, Beijing’s policymakers not only see someone who shares their general outlook and is willing to poke Washington in the eye, but also someone with enough of a sense of history to accept the role of pliable junior partner. Last decade, it was Putin who kept the Chinese at arm’s length. In the last couple of years, however, he has adopted a far more conciliatory attitude. As he said of Beijing in April 2012, “We do not have a single irritating element in our ties.
There are so many Philippine sided false presumptions in this analysis.
The US impression is not that we owe the Philippines a debt of gratitude. Reality is more the other way round. Subic and Clark and the spin off money they brought into the local communities are what enabled the Philippines to survive and thrive no matter how corrupt Marcos and his followers were. Aquino made us pull the plug and it all collapsed. No more dependent school teacher jobs. No more free repairs of bridges and roads, etc. You had a free Navy. The US Navy. You wanted it gone. Now you want us to keep loaning you ancient destroyers painted Coast Guard White. But you whine because China paints NEW destroyers Coast Guard white and many of them too. Why should we give more than one when the one we give gets no maintenance or upgrades?
Most Americans do not think of the Philippines daily, or even monthly. We are weary. We are tired of dealing with Daesh and silly little tribal wars in the Mid East. Do you truly believe that if China decides (if they had the transports) to para drop 100,000 PLA soldiers into Manilla tonight, all the American parents would send their kids to join the US Military to defend the Philippines? Or even support a President proposing to send a half million home from Iraq to the Philippines next? Reality check time: You on your own.
China and Putin circle. Putin started a stupid game. Pulled his soldiers from Siberia to attack the Ukraine. Who now guards the resource rich Siberian territories? Very few Russian troops are there today. China smiles and her Army moves closer to the border. The West munches popcorn but will not be involved.
------ This thread is Archived ------
because this situation with China, Vietnam and USA recently signed
a treaty if Vietnam is attacked by China the treaty says USA will
get involved
a treaty if Vietnam is attacked by China the treaty says USA will
get involved
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ken_19: There are so many Philippine sided false presumptions in this analysis.
The US impression is not that we owe the Philippines a debt of gratitude. Reality is more the other way round. Subic and Clark and the spin off money they brought into the local communities are what enabled the Philippines to survive and thrive no matter how corrupt Marcos and his followers were. Aquino made us pull the plug and it all collapsed. No more dependent school teacher jobs. No more free repairs of bridges and roads, etc. You had a free Navy. The US Navy. You wanted it gone. Now you want us to keep loaning you ancient destroyers painted Coast Guard White. But you whine because China paints NEW destroyers Coast Guard white and many of them too. Why should we give more than one when the one we give gets no maintenance or upgrades?
Most Americans do not think of the Philippines daily, or even monthly. We are weary. We are tired of dealing with Daesh and silly little tribal wars in the Mid East. Do you truly believe that if China decides (if they had the transports) to para drop 100,000 PLA soldiers into Manilla tonight, all the American parents would send their kids to join the US Military to defend the Philippines? Or even support a President proposing to send a half million home from Iraq to the Philippines next? Reality check time: You on your own.
China and Putin circle. Putin started a stupid game. Pulled his soldiers from Siberia to attack the Ukraine. Who now guards the resource rich Siberian territories? Very few Russian troops are there today. China smiles and her Army moves closer to the border. The West munches popcorn but will not be involved.
The US impression is not that we owe the Philippines a debt of gratitude. Reality is more the other way round. Subic and Clark and the spin off money they brought into the local communities are what enabled the Philippines to survive and thrive no matter how corrupt Marcos and his followers were. Aquino made us pull the plug and it all collapsed. No more dependent school teacher jobs. No more free repairs of bridges and roads, etc. You had a free Navy. The US Navy. You wanted it gone. Now you want us to keep loaning you ancient destroyers painted Coast Guard White. But you whine because China paints NEW destroyers Coast Guard white and many of them too. Why should we give more than one when the one we give gets no maintenance or upgrades?
Most Americans do not think of the Philippines daily, or even monthly. We are weary. We are tired of dealing with Daesh and silly little tribal wars in the Mid East. Do you truly believe that if China decides (if they had the transports) to para drop 100,000 PLA soldiers into Manilla tonight, all the American parents would send their kids to join the US Military to defend the Philippines? Or even support a President proposing to send a half million home from Iraq to the Philippines next? Reality check time: You on your own.
China and Putin circle. Putin started a stupid game. Pulled his soldiers from Siberia to attack the Ukraine. Who now guards the resource rich Siberian territories? Very few Russian troops are there today. China smiles and her Army moves closer to the border. The West munches popcorn but will not be involved.
It's not a question of gratitude ,, when there is money to be won, sure America will put it's nose inside,, there's only eternal interest in there,, USA was always in war, everywhere, ever since ? ,,, i bet USA is very interested with the Shoal,,
And about maintenance, who left the Phils. with so much pollution until to the tap ground water causing a lot of anomalies on the childre born in that perimeter where the base was.
China won't engage in war if we let them do what they want.
------ This thread is Archived ------
DertyHarry44: because this situation with China, Vietnam and USA recently signed
a treaty if Vietnam is attacked by China the treaty says USA will
get involved
a treaty if Vietnam is attacked by China the treaty says USA will
get involved
Yes, INVOLVED. China understands that. We will complain at the Hague. We will ask the US to sanction the exports of Chinese oil (there are none). We will take pictures by satellite. We will ask our lap dog England to protest. That is involved. Then we will go to sleep and see who won in the morning.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ken_19: Yes, INVOLVED. China understands that. We will complain at the Hague. We will ask the US to sanction the exports of Chinese oil (there are none). We will take pictures by satellite. We will ask our lap dog England to protest. That is involved. Then we will go to sleep and see who won in the morning.
I just hope it is like that
------ This thread is Archived ------
Once upon a time our aircraft carriers were nuclear capable. Heck even our Army had small nuclear cannon shells and the like. For launching an attack at Russia's back door the Philippine bases were potentially useful. As a base not likely to be over run by North Koreans, they were useful. As a back up to the, then still occupying, Marines on Okinawa they were useful. The world and weapons changed. Satellites replaced SR-71 Blackbirds.
Point is many places that held strategic military value once upon a time in the days before jets that can circle the globe, and computers that can bring up real time satellite data to include radio, phone, and electric consumption of anywhere, hold no such value now.
The big joke is touched on. It is about oil and no one has really found it yet. It is also insane for anyone living there to want to add oil pollution to the area. You think the ground water is bad now? Ha. Wait till oil is discovered.
Incidentally when we shut down our bases in Panama, we spent a lot of money, time and effort for years afterwards removing toxic stuff from our base areas. Why didn't we do that in the Philippines?
Again, Aquino. She maintained we should sign a long term lease at full cost at a dollar value of her choosing, even if we were just going to be doing toxic clean up at no cost to her govt. Told her until she changed to a more reasonable approach, it was her problem.
Point is many places that held strategic military value once upon a time in the days before jets that can circle the globe, and computers that can bring up real time satellite data to include radio, phone, and electric consumption of anywhere, hold no such value now.
The big joke is touched on. It is about oil and no one has really found it yet. It is also insane for anyone living there to want to add oil pollution to the area. You think the ground water is bad now? Ha. Wait till oil is discovered.
Incidentally when we shut down our bases in Panama, we spent a lot of money, time and effort for years afterwards removing toxic stuff from our base areas. Why didn't we do that in the Philippines?
Again, Aquino. She maintained we should sign a long term lease at full cost at a dollar value of her choosing, even if we were just going to be doing toxic clean up at no cost to her govt. Told her until she changed to a more reasonable approach, it was her problem.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Once upon a time our carriers were relocated from Pearl Harbor
so the Japanese Armada free to hit Pearl.
so the Japanese Armada free to hit Pearl.
------ This thread is Archived ------
DertyHarry44: Once upon a time our carriers were relocated from Pearl Harbor
so the Japanese Armada free to hit Pearl.
so the Japanese Armada free to hit Pearl.
Poor decision making. I suppose.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lindsyjones: "The leaders of Southeast Asian nations recently took the extraordinary step of warning China that its island-building activities in the contested South China Sea "may undermine peace, security and stability" in the region."
This is the exact statement on the news from CNN>
This is the exact statement on the news from CNN>
Hey Linsy,
Ask yourself why this is happening at this time. Part of the answer is his WEAK LEADERSHIP (lack of leadership) from HIS EXCELLENCY AND KING ODUMBO! Especially from our enemies, they have become embolden with this WEAK and FAILED LEADER! He makes Woody Allen look like a "circus strongman in comparison! A failed FOREIGN POLICY, even Iran leaders call him weak , and they are now refusing to even let United Nations Inspector inspect their Nuclear Facilities--so much for this proposed agreement for allowing Iran to develop the Nuclear Bomb
------ This thread is Archived ------
hotburninluv: Hey Linsy,
Ask yourself why this is happening at this time. Part of the answer is his WEAK LEADERSHIP (lack of leadership) from HIS EXCELLENCY AND KING ODUMBO! Especially from our enemies, they have become embolden with this WEAK and FAILED LEADER! He makes Woody Allen look like a "circus strongman in comparison! A failed FOREIGN POLICY, even Iran leaders call him weak , and they are now refusing to even let United Nations Inspector inspect their Nuclear Facilities--so much for this proposed agreement for allowing Iran to develop the Nuclear Bomb
Ask yourself why this is happening at this time. Part of the answer is his WEAK LEADERSHIP (lack of leadership) from HIS EXCELLENCY AND KING ODUMBO! Especially from our enemies, they have become embolden with this WEAK and FAILED LEADER! He makes Woody Allen look like a "circus strongman in comparison! A failed FOREIGN POLICY, even Iran leaders call him weak , and they are now refusing to even let United Nations Inspector inspect their Nuclear Facilities--so much for this proposed agreement for allowing Iran to develop the Nuclear Bomb
------ This thread is Archived ------
hotburninluv: Hey Linsy,
Ask yourself why this is happening at this time. Part of the answer is his WEAK LEADERSHIP (lack of leadership) from HIS EXCELLENCY AND KING ODUMBO! Especially from our enemies, they have become embolden with this WEAK and FAILED LEADER! He makes Woody Allen look like a "circus strongman in comparison! A failed FOREIGN POLICY, even Iran leaders call him weak , and they are now refusing to even let United Nations Inspector inspect their Nuclear Facilities--so much for this proposed agreement for allowing Iran to develop the Nuclear Bomb
Ask yourself why this is happening at this time. Part of the answer is his WEAK LEADERSHIP (lack of leadership) from HIS EXCELLENCY AND KING ODUMBO! Especially from our enemies, they have become embolden with this WEAK and FAILED LEADER! He makes Woody Allen look like a "circus strongman in comparison! A failed FOREIGN POLICY, even Iran leaders call him weak , and they are now refusing to even let United Nations Inspector inspect their Nuclear Facilities--so much for this proposed agreement for allowing Iran to develop the Nuclear Bomb
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
wanting beyond need
Unions support Democrats!
your favorite topic?
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
The weird and the random facts around the world
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
Feel Good Music
Ladies
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
the way you look
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
PROFESSOR: Here's Why Britain's Military Could Beat China
Absolutely. A war with China would be a better thing to happen for Britain and the West than it would the Chinese. We can't beat them in the workplace, we can't beat them in tests, we can't beat them educationally, financially, socially or in any other way but war.
Before the Baby Boomers the West was the best in the world at nearly everything, but now the only relevant skill they kept is how to kill people en masse.