The world is a far more dangerous place

Oh yes, I was mocking the entire fear industry. Your hesitation to recognize that makes me reluctant to ever use satire, irony, sarcasm, etc. on these boards, especially when intelligent folk like yourself are uncertain.

Your Prince predicted the world would end two years ago while Octavia Cortes, an elected idiot on this side, has graciously extended that to another 12.

I'm going to begin a scare campaign based on alternate scientific facts, if you'd care to sign up. "The World Will End In 10 Billion Years". That should attract their attention. https://www.sciencealert.com/what-will-happen-after-the-sun-dies-planetary-nebula-solar-system

 

And the same is true of China.

 

Nice to see you back, James, even if you're still hitting .125. )

 

The use of nuclear weapons in strategic warfare has been, continuously, on the table since August 1945; not once has it been removed, by anyone.

Your post, and the sources attached, are incongruent with the realities of the nuclear age.

 

If you say so.

 

China is planning for the day that they are the dominant economic and military power in the world

 

Given their demographics and new President for life I doubt that will ever happen. This new 'rapprochement' with Russia will also be short-lived.

 

China is a paper tiger. Their entire economy is reliant on trade with countries that they would go to war with. They also have a sever lack of natural resources. They have no energy and can not even feed their own people. Any real war would be fatal to China.

China and Russia have an uneasy alliance. China needs their energy, Russia needs China's money. Neither have enough of what the other needs.

 

Maybe more lke a hyena,

And a hyena can be a very dangerous animal

 

and the US. go figger.

 

Yes they have a distinct cultural advantage (and convenient political system) in that they can craft and execute strategic plans that may take more than a generation or two to bring to fruition. They'll get what they can today, but not at the expense of where they are going.

Noticed how many chinese researcher/students are getting their name on American research papers? Anecdotally it seems incredibly disproportionate, since they only represent about 3% of the university population.

 

Yes, but not in Alaska? Or on your northern or southern borders?? See the difference?

 

Coming from you, Fred, I consider that a compliment.

Safe enough assertion I suppose, when we won't be around to challenge her, and she won't be around to defend herself? And yet to believe there are those out there who'll believe it . . . some of them frequenters of the Science forum??

 

I cant stop russia from being offended if they choose

But the exercises were within NATO borders

 

You seem resigned to the inevitable

 

I think their demographics is an advantage for their dreams of total world domination

 

Exactly my point - there's the entire continent of Europe to hold them, but oh no, NATO has to hold them as near to Russia as possible?

 

Because of the number of people? Their one child policy was disaster for young men in the country (130 men to every 100 women in some places) so their edginess at not having a place to put it could lead to some aggressiveness. However women are having fewer children, one of the lowest birth rates in the world, the wealth is spread unevenly, and their economy is in difficulty. Lack of raw materials and energy, a highly uneven distribution of wealth and spotty leadership dooms any attempt at world domination.

India will do better over the long term than China, is my guess, and would be a formidable foe in themselves, especially with their Allies, should the Chinese get too aggressive. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/pol...mographic-time-bomb-still-ticking-worlds-most

 

If hostilities erupt the attack will come from russia

 

China may never be a happy place for reasons you have listed

But in terms of raw power all the ingredients are there

 

No. Its not inevitable.

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.

 

Well, the threat was always there but the idea of MAD was a deterrence to actual use. Notice that no nukes have actually been used in warfare since 1945. The various treaties including the INF which eliminated an entire class of weapons within a certain range, have been part of an completely inadequate, imho, attempt to limit proliferation.

With the threat of a new arms race and the production and modernization of reduced yield tactical weapons, which is the point of the op, the nuclear age is moving into a new era where use of tactical battlefield nuclear weapons is not only being contemplated but actively planned for by world powers.

The idea of MAD is fast becoming a quaint acronym of the first cold war though I think the biggest threat is and always has been from nuclear armed submarines so that hasn't changed.

 

How can you be so sure? It is not like the US has never illegally attacked another nation or anything..........

What if Russia were taking part in war games in the Caribbean right on US border as NATO is doing in Europe?

 

Well, you are always engaged somewhere, are you not? That is what the doctrine of endless warfare means.

 

MAD only works with the use of nuclear weapons is ON the table.
No one put nuclear weapons back on the table because they were never taken off.

This has been an ongoing process since 1945. Nothing has changed.

MAD has kept the peace for >60 years.