Norwegian Navy


#101

That is good. Free and fair competition in an international setting.
I wish that could be the way all things were done and guns used only to show of in drills.


#102

[quote=“DeckApe, post:96, topic:45586, full:true”]
Because people are more civilized and enlightened now as opposed to in the past? (Haven’t people been saying that for a long time?)[/quote]
Yes people HAVE become more civilized and yes…, that is what have been said for a long time.
Let’s hope it can continue to be the case in the future as well.

That is the most worrying, that the military brass will blindly follow order, without consideration to the consequences for their country, their families and the world at large.
That is of course what they have been trained to do, but in our “enlightened world” one would hope that there would be somebody with enough backbone to stop a madman, even if he is their President, PM or King. (That applies universally)

Yes I remember and I agree; if you are going to attack another country to change the regime you better have a plan for what happens next. “You break it, you bought it”.
I can also remember Kennedy/Johnson being sucked into a war in S.E.Asia that they could not win, and Reagan attacking a tiny island in the Caribbean and…

Well, what do you think?? How many wars have America been directly, or indirectly through proxies, involved in since WWII?
I realize that you have to have a reason to keep a big Army, Navy and Air Force active and the world in awe of your power to maintain hegemony, but the world is not as impressed, or afraid anymore.
Although, looking at what is going on in Washington these days, it may be time to get REALLY scared.

Yes, one of the last vestiges of a colonial past. It would be nice if they could settle their differences after 70 years, but with the vested interests of the ruling classes and military on both sides in keeping the conflict going, don’t hold your breath.
The meddling by Superpowers during the Cold War and the changing allegiances since, hasn’t made it any more likely to happen soon.

The last sentence is sarcasm I hope? BTW; You forgot greed, one of the main driving forces.
Otherwise, thanks for your kind judgment, it’s not often I get credit for any knowledge,judgment or intelligence on this forum.
We can only hope that this time it WILL be different, unless some old thinking, or old fools, get in the way.


#103

I agree, it is chilling to hear one of the anointed make that statement but the alternative is equally chilling. While there are a few instances where someone with “backbone” said no to a madman’s orders, history has shown that the same backbone allows the generals to not just say “no” to madmen but to take complete control. The results to date have arguably been as bad or worse.

I honestly believe the US is presently under the management of a madman who seems to be surrounding himself with more madmen and lapdogs so the idea of a madman at the button is no longer just a Hollywood film plot.


#104

Frighteningly true.


#105

Nothing can be worse than a war between USA and either Russia or China (or both), which is likely to escalate into a nuclear conflict, the effect of which will not be limited to those three countries.

Both Russia and China has declared that they will not be first to use such weapons, but if they are attacked or threatened and provoked. they may end up doing so anyhow.

No leader would hold back if their cities are bombed and thousands of their people killed over ideological disputes, or dispute over trading rights with an adversary led by a madman without checks and balances. That also applies if USA should be the one being attacked.

But since Russia is now too weak and hemmed in to do so and China is not interested in taking over the responsibilities of being the world hegemony, neither is likely to fire the first shot.
Besides, China has never been expansionist, or have ever occupied any other country. Their only interested is to secure the sea routes and trade routes to maintain their position as the world’s premier trader.

You only have to look at a map to see why they wants to control the North and South China Sea and loosen the US grip on the Philippines and Indonesia, as long as USA looks at China as an adversary and a threat to it’s dominance in Asia.

I’m sorry to say that what the world worry most about right now is what is happening in USA.
If the democratic bulwark that keep the military/industrial complex and the ultra nationalists in check should break down, only God knows what will happen.


#106

Tibet?


#107

China’s One Belt One Road initiative will buy up infrastructure globally.

Hambantota, Djibouti, Pireaus, East Africa, Kribi Cameroon and now the are making overtures to Russia for the NSR.

A Russo - China axis means they don’t have to watch their backs. Both have Islamist terroristsin states to the South.

A shooting war with either is inconcievable. China would gain great kudos if they dealt with N Korea, then the whole region would breathe easier and the new world order would settle into place.


#108

Well, was Tibet ever an independent country, at least in the last few hundred years?
From 1720 to 1912 Tibet was under Qing Dynasty rule, but with some degree of autonomy under the Dalai Lama.

In the period after the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in China in 1912 until the formal annexation as an autonomous region of PRC in 1951, it had status as “Protectorate” both of China and Britain.
In this period some claim that there existed a “defacto independent Tibet” for a short period of time, but that has never been accepted by any other countries, except Mongolia.

Today most countries accept that Tibet is an autonomous region of PRC, as does the UN.


#109

Yes China is flexing it’s commercial muscles around the world, as is it’s “rights” as the second largest single economy in the world. (If you count EU as a single economy then China is third, soon to become second)

Those countries that accept the fact of China’s rise and their offer of financing and building of infrastructure in foreign countries will benefit from this.
Those who think that they can stop, or at least contain China’s rise to world prominence will loose out.

Get out of the notion of white supremacy and American exceptionalism and accept that the new world order, centered in Asia, will happen. (Unless some madmen decides it is better to kill us all then to accept the inevitable)


#110

Korean reunification would bring the United States to China’s doorstep. The new regional order would have American forces uncomfortably close. North Korea serves as a buffer against a US allied Korea, as an effective distraction to the US/Japan/South Korea axis that drains the resources (political, economic, military) that would otherwise be free to focus on China, and as a bargaining chip to play whenever the US/Japan/South Korea wants to play rough on other matters such as trade or Taiwan.

No, the smart move for China is to keep feeding their rabid little dog - the more rabid the dog the more effective a deterrent it is.

Besides, any nuclear exchange between North Korea and the West shouldn’t cause China or Russia much physical damage as long as they stay out of it. The winds will blow most of the fallout onto South Korea, Japan and Alaska/US West Coast and away from China (and Russia).


#111

If America would stop looking for enemies to justify their large military budget and tried to build amicable relations with China, there would be no need to worry on either side.

The present policy of threats and provocations can only heighten the fear of seen American soldiers across the Yalu River.

Trump would be honoured to meet Kim Young Un, right??
Why not send him over there to sort out this sh*t, then ban him from re-entering because he has visited an unfriendly country? (Solve two problems with one stone)


#112

For someone as old as you are I’m surprised you’re not more jaded. Not an insult - an observation. In my country that wistful optimism is reserved for youths.

What has the world ever been but power plays between the Wants and the Haves? Those who want it try to get it. Those who have it try to keep it. This isn’t reserved for whites, empires and Americans. But again, you know this is a basic human behavior.

What I don’t get is your stance on how things should be as opposed to how things are. Put another way, for example, you’d say the world would be a safer place if everyone just got rid of their nukes which, while true, is about as reasonable as saying we could solve climate change if everyone stopped having children for about a half century.


#113

[quote=“DeckApe, post:112, topic:45586, full:true”]
For someone as old as you are I’m surprised you’re not more jaded. Not an insult - an observation. In my country that wistful optimism is reserved for youths.[/quote]
The day I lose my optimism and belief that it is possible to make the world a better place, that is the day I’m REALLY OLD. It may come one day, but I hope not.

It has been a universal truth, but having seen the way things are developing in Scandinavia, I have a hope that it can change one day. Not today, tomorrow or the next day, but the trend here is pointing upwards.
My other home country, Singapore, has a different approach towards a similar goal and face a steeper resistance due to it’s location in the world.

No, none of the above. Nukes and MAD is what kept the Cold War cold. Even today it is what put a restrain on the madmen of the world.
If we could get rid of all madmen, I would agree, get rid of the nukes, but we are far from there yet.

As to limiting children to save the world from overheating? Not a likely solution, but education to reduce population growth in underdeveloped countries and migration to keep up the present population in the developed world to avoid global overpopulation would be a good start.

We already know what it takes to control the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, all we need to do is to convince people that short sighted policy and personal convenience has to take backseat to mutual world interest. (But that is a whole other discussion)


#114

Politics and climate change are not our biggest problems, nor is whatever we might try to do about them a solution. It makes no difference who we elect or what wars they start or prevent.

The biggest problem is, has been, and will continue to be, overpopulation. Humankind is unwilling to even have an intelligent conversation about limiting population growth, much less to adopt urgently necessary controls.

Famine and disease are the mechanisms that nature uses to control population of a particular species and maintain a balance in the ecology. Humans have interfered with the natural regulatory mechanisms of famine and disease through technology and innovation. But humans have not won the war against nature, just a few battles. In the end nature always wins.

Sooner or later in a disease, such as the plague in the Middle Ages, will evolve from nature and half or more of the human population will be quickly and catastrophically wiped out. Economies will collapse and a long period of chaos, deindustrialization , and population decline will occur.

The natural balance of the earth ecosystem will be restored with a much much smaller human population. Climate change, ocean acidification, micro-plastics, and other human made environmental problems will disappear. Then the cycle will begin anew.


#115

Wars have also been the human way of controlling population. That and frequent outbreak of diseases. Since we learnt to separate sewage and drinking water, and with the advances in medical knowledge, the last one has greatly diminished natural early deaths, we are only left with wars as a major regulator.


#116

I think malaria alone still kills more people each year than any other disease or wars. Finding a “cure” for malaria would be a big mistake for the planet.


#117

There is a few more things to say about this, but I think we have to refrain from mentioning more, otherwise we may be accused of cruel and/or inhumane remarks.


#118

(Coughs) Spratley Islands?


#119

Manchuria/Siberia was the cause of Sino-Soviet hostilities which was, I believe, the first time nuclear armed states actually engaged in armed conflict. (Something the United States still hasn’t done.)


#120

There is also an ongoing conflict with India over areas on their common border in the Himalayas: http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/3-messages-from-china-in-provocation-of-india-1721214
And in the east at Arunachal Pradesh, where the disagreement is over the McMahon Line, stretching from Bhutan to the boarder with Myanmar: http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/images/map-india-china-eastern-sector-1988.jpg|||India-China Border Map - Eastern Sector

Much of the population in this area and the northern parts of Myanmar originate from China and are not well integrated in the countries they now nominally belongs to. (Another vestige of Colonialism)
Internal conflicts are raging in Nagaland and the Karen district as well, without China being involved.