ahh now I understand. Like Q’anon. If you’re not part of it you don’t understand what’s going on.
3 Likes
Here’s the perfect analogy:
You know your neighbor has a bar of gold in his house. You want the gold. There’s gold elsewhere but you want that gold. It’s shiny.
So, you tell your neighbor, Tell you what. I’ll give you pennies on the dollar to buy the gold and your house. Maybe two cents on every dollar of their true value. Because I truly think you’re stupid enough to take that deal.
And because if you don’t take the deal I’m going to kick down your door and take it all. Because I’m big and you’re small.
Yeah. I think that sums up the situation nicely.
4 Likes
There is some merit to the US acquiring Greenland.
The Danes (and other Nordic countries) don’t want to give Greenland up for one major reason: FISHING.
The Chinese want to expand into the Arctic. The US footprint in the Arctic is relatively small and in only one corner, Russia’s footprint in the Arctic is vast. So is Canada’s.
Greenland might turnout over the long run to be as valuable for its many different natural and mineral resources as Alaska.
Elon is a visionary that thinks very longterm.
Buying Greenland is a concept worthy of consideration. Taking Greenland by force and having the US become an international Pyrrha is a horrible idea
@freighterman1 is absolutely correct. The current focus needs to be on Russia. We need to help Ukraine defeat Putin to the point where there is a new revolution and a move toward democracy in Russia. We have spent untold $$$$ trillions over the last 80 years to contain Russian aggression.
All we need to do to contain Russia is to keep letting the US military industrial complex continue to make $$$$ Billions flooding Ukraine with weapons. And with sanctions, tariffs, and stealthy military force make the dark fleet tankers stop carrying Russian oil. The Ukraines will do the bleeding until Putin is removed by his own people.
China is going to take Taiwan at some point: next year, next decade, or next century. They are committed to doing it with something akin to a crazed religious zeal. Frankly, I don’t think there is much that the US can do, or should try to do, to prevent it. The Chinese military is already too big and too strong for the US to stop them at an acceptable cost.
If the US wants to acquire an island by force to protect itself from China, Russia, and communism, then CUBA , a festering toothache and security threat (Chinese spy center, state sponsored drug trafficking, support for international terrorism, etc) Right Nextdoor, is the most logical place to take, with manageable World outcry.
The only thing that will win a war against China are human bodies.
Look at the Ukraine war. Russia’s strategy is brutally simple. Overwhelm the opponent with numbers. Throw away tanks , artillery, helicopters. It doesn’t matter. Lose three Russians for every Ukrainian. Doesn’t matter. Because Russia has a bigger population than Ukraine and Ukraine will run out of fighting men before Russia does. That’s the Russian strategy.
That’s exactly what China will do in a war against the USA. They outnumber us 4 to one. In WW2 we outnumbered both our opponents combined. But in WW3 we are outnumbered 4 to 1. The Chinese will send wave after wave of cannon fodder at us until we run out of fighting men.
Our only ally of consequence is NATO. Their bodies get us closer to being outnumbered by only 2 to 1.
So, what do we do to plan for the war? We show the world that we believe the strong should steal from the weak. We do everything we can to disparage NATO. And we allow Russia and North Korea to win a war in Europe. We do all that in the hopes that NATO will side with us in a war with China?
WTF???
Why would NATO support a fascist regime that turned its back on them, against anyone?
You want to plan for WW3 against China? Lock in another 350 million people on our side or we lose. Nothing else will save us.
2 Likes
I respectfully disagree as far as China is concerned. Cyber warfare is the way of the future. A country can be crippled by shutting off the electrical, banking, water and other systems without dropping a bomb. Once crippled they can choose to go the MAD route or come to terms. The US spends 3 times as much as China on ‘defense’ with little to show for it. At almost a trillion dollars a year for ‘defense’ there should be no reason to entertain the notion of buying Greenland unless you admit that the trillion dollars a year cannot defend the country. Besides how would you pay for Greenland without greatly increasing the national debt. Put it to a vote; increase income tax to pay for Greenland! There is little affordable housing now in the USA, healthcare costs are rising while life expectancy is falling and the US cannot afford to do anything about that but they can buy Greenland ? The entire scenario is ludicrous.
2 Likes
How far in the future are you talking? The Ukraine war is pretty futuristic. But active cyber warfare on both sides has given neither a military advantage.
What the Ukraine war does show is the battlefield of the future will be saturated with drones. And right now behind each drone is a body operating it.
1 Like
Why would you look for a WW3 against China? Has China made any treats to attack USA, or even any US territories or bases outside USA?
China has built up it’s defensive forces to defend it’s territory from any aggressor that may attack, but has repeatedly stated that it has no desire to attack anybody, incl. a “no first strike” pledge:
Source:
Norway is close enough to the flashpoint of Russia and the Ukraine to have enough on your plate. We on the other hand feel the winds of China throughout the Pacific. We have learnt that not all that China promises can be trusted.
2 Likes
Because China is the most powerful possible adversary we have. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. The worst is WW3 with China. So, we need to plan for that. Doesn’t mean we’re going to start the war. We just need to be prepared to end it.
The most current industrialized war extant is the Ukraine War. We are learning answers from that war that we didn’t even have questions for a few years ago.
One answer is that despite both sides having modern military armaments victory may come down to simple demographics. An age-old thing. Who has the most bodies?
We need more bodies. We need millions of allies with reason to go to war on our side. If we are truly thinking of possible war then we need to focus on keeping those allies on-side, and not get distracted but shiny things we could buy elsewhere.
1 Like
We are getting a bit away from Greenland here. Maybe a moderator could separate out some of the latest post to a separate thread. (not shut it down for OT)
I don’t know what threat China is to New Zealand?
Have they threatened to take back the right to the Chinese Gooseberry, better known as the Kiwifruit?:
From all the talking about war with China you should believe that USA is the one that is spoiling for a war. China bashing may be popular at home and win vote, but it is not very productive for world peace.
It may be good for the military establishment and weapons suppliers though.
How else can they convince the US taxpayers to spend $$ tr, on “defence”?
China is not dumb enough to provoke a war with USA, hence they do not carry out offensive military manoeuvres close to the US coast, or overseas bases.
The “Taiwan issue” is not likely to materialize into anything but posturing on both sides. The US recognized the PRC Government as the legitimate rulers of China in 1979:
Since then there have been many “interpretations” of the “One China Policy” on the US side,
The fact remains that Taiwan is not an independent country and will eventually return to Chinese rule. (Whether under PRC/CCP or some future rulers, yet unknown)
We cannot defend Taiwan, The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, etc from an expansionist China.
Nor is it necessarily our job in the first place.
The most powerful weapon the US has against China is control over access to the US consumer marketplace. China needs to be able to sell cheap plastic junk that promptly breaks to the fools that buy it at Walmart.
A 1000% tariff on Chinese goods would collapse the Chinese economy within a month without firing a shot. Alternatively, barring Chinese built, owned, financed or insured ships from US ports would also collapse the Chinese economy fairly quickly.
Would the Chinese risk that to take Taiwan? Of course they would. They could bear the collapse of their economy and rebuild it in a couple of decades without the US market.
Moderators could show mercy and open a new non-removable thread with adequate title, where all delusional members of this war quackademia can tell interested viewers how to win the war with ruskie so one will not need to waste time searching threads where a group of insane individuals taken from " One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest" loony bin are debating strategies.
Love to read stories of jerks living in a state of complete denial and detachment from reality. Do not forget in sanctions no.17 to include Aqua-fresh tooth paste. Read the story of one respectable but weird Guy here how he was disarmirg North Korean female soldiers blinking at them.
Got an idea which pls consider.Sent 10 000 of your lovely US Army beauties to Pokrovsk and let them start blinking at ruskies. I will guarantee ruskies will skedadle in panic and US will be the ultimate winner so You can start balkanisation of mother russia without wasting 3rd milion of Slavs .
Expansionist China??? Have you been watching the news lately?
Maybe it is not China that is “Expanstionist”?:
When did China threaten to take over another country? (Taiwan is NOT a country)
When did China last invade another country?
Yes, China is an “Economic Expansionist” in the sense that they want to grow their market, both internally and externally. It also want to secure it’s supply routes for raw materials and oil & gas.
Her is why Taiwan is important, both for USA and China:
It is the “cork in the bottle” of the First Island Chain.
Taiwan “blocks” free access to/from the open seas for Chinese commerce and navy.
It also allow the US Navy to get close to the Chinese mainland to get full effect of their aircraft carriers.
This is also the reason why China wants control of the South and East China Sea, not to stop or hinder free access for commercial and friendly passage in accordance with UNCLOS.
The days when China exported “cheap plastic junk” only is over.
Did you hear about DeepSeek comming to town and TikTok staying?
1 Like
Here’s another reason: Taiwan is the factory for the West. It is a source for inexpensively made goods , both upscale and down market, from a a pro-West country.
It has enormous production capacity all out of proportion to its size.
If and when the PRC takes it over, all that production capacity and all those talented people fall from the West’s ledgers to those of the PRC, making the PRC a much stronger
possible adversary. People and production capacity count in a war.
So, if you’re a Western strategic planner the consideration is this: if you truly think war with China is inevitable, it makes sense to arm Taiwan to the teeth, and keep arming it, and protect it in new and unusual ways, to prevent China from taking it over. Because if you don’t China becomes even harder to beat.
But if you don’t think war is inevitable, maybe not.
It counts when there are no war too. PRC is a MUCH bigger “factory for the world” (not only the “West”) than Taiwan can ever be.
Arming Taiwan will not change the fact that China is many times bigger, more populous than Taiwan. They are also very similar, with the same language(es), same Culture(s) and religion(s) on both sides of the Strait.
The difference is political, caused by a civil war in the 1930s-40s that brought the loosing side (ROC) to Taiwan. They still claimed to be the the legitimate Government of China for decades after.
The generation that came to Taiwan in 1949 is dying out and Kuomintang is no longer the ruling party on Taiwan.
Maybe the two sides can finally settle their differences and come to an agreement, without outside interference?
War is NOT inevitable if the two sides sits down and find out what is best for them. That would be much preferred, me think. WAR is not a solution for anything!!!
Completely and sincerely agree with you. Let’s hope it never comes to that.
The Jews of Auschwitz disagree.
2 Likes
Dr.Bugge. Surely You know abt what is quoted below:
" The Monroe Doctrine is a United States foreign policy position that opposes European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. Dec 2nd 1823
It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the United States. The doctrine was central to American grand strategy in the 20th century.
In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds for the United States’ confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuban soil. " -SOURCE : WIKI
Now I have spent whole Sunday searching in Google and other search engines .I have not asked ChatGpt or the other …the Chinese thing…DeepThroat or sth like that but after studing Your performance here I am 100% sure You know the answer to my querry .
Are You aware of Monroe Doctrine ver. 2.0 which expands the original version to such an extent that it covers the whole planet ??? Can You advise the date of it’s proclamation??
Does it say may be, that any country striving for better and faster economic development what in consequence leads to bigger wealth and consequently to better and stronger military power is a threat to the security of US and must be choked by eaconomic , political and/or military means??
It all reminds me of shoolyard bully type of bahaviour.
2 Likes
China has been making absurd territorial claims in the South China Sea for decades, hundreds of miles from its own coast and right up to the shore of the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. absurd claims to the Spratley Islands. There is no principled basis for this, other than Imperialism.
China is building Islands in other countries’ EEZs and militarizing them.
China is engaged in predatory lending and economic imperialism throughout the Third World (e.g. Sri Lanka, and even Europe (Macedonia)).
If the USA wants Greenland, it should offer the less than 100,000 Greenlanders:
US Citizenship (with the right to live, work, and go to school in the US), and
Much more of everything else (welfare programs, economic development programs, school funding, etc.) than Denmark does,
Also, set up a Greenland Permanent Fund (analogous to the Alaska Permanent Fund), with cash dividends going directly to every man, woman and child living in Greenland. Start out with a few $$$ Billion in seed capital that would be augmented by natural resources royalties (fishing, minerals, tourism franchises, etc.)
We could peacefully acquire Greenland just by offering them sufficient incentives.
I’d like to see Jones Act shipping to and within Greenland, and US fishing in Greenland.
1 Like