It's not a good sign when Israel

[Breaker_Morant]

Take a geography lesson. Iraq is pretty much a desert. Afghanistan has some of the most extreme terrain on earth. And the western part of Pakistan is pretty much a al-Qaeda free zone where even the Pakistan army won't enter. That's why we found Saddam and why we'll probably never find Obama Bin Laden.

My guess is that we know where he is and someone made the decision that it was, from an intelligence point of view, better to watch him and see what sort of intell can be gleamed from that. "Bringing him in" will be a political decision. Besides, if we caught him, put him on trial and ultimately executed him he would be considered a martyr in the cause of Jihad and that would only wind up having more people sign up to follow in his foot steps.

Saddam was different. His following was based on his power - once he lost power, his following decided it was evey man for himself.

 

[TerragonSix]

When the IDF were prepping for the mission into Iraq the didn't advertise and they did a similar train up and that time they only used 6 (I believe). I think it is just saber rattling.

What's that saying? "A saber makes no noise when you unsheath it?" Or something similar.

I believe the saying goes, "A saber makes noise by rattling it in the sheath, but makes no noise by unsheathing it."

Honestly, I'm not surprised.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

I believe the saying goes, "A saber makes noise by rattling it in the sheath, but makes no noise by unsheathing it."

Honestly, I'm not surprised.

Isreal will act in its own self interest; reprocussions be damned but only when they feel their back is up against the wall.

 

[TerragonSix]

Isreal will act in its own self interest; reprocussions be damned but only when they feel their back is up against the wall.

Their 'back' is already covered by the US government. Ever see a little kid go around and say, "Better not mess with me, or my older brother will come and kick your ass!"

That is a good analogy for Israel.

How do you think they got all of those F-15, F-16 fighter jets?

 

[Breaker_Morant]

How do you think they got all of those F-15, F-16 fighter jets?

They come with a price, I'm sure. Israel, to a degree, is a "client state" like Poland, East Germany and a few other countries were to the USSR in the days of the cold war. The price is that we have some say in their military actions. Look at the Gulf War - Saddam was raining scuds on Israel in hopes to cause them to attack and thus cause (hopefully) Syria and Egypt to leave the Allied coalition. It didn't work - we deployed Patroit missile batteries there. They haven't left.

 

[Netzach]

although they juggle millions of dollars, recruit people every day, have their own fucking TV station...but we are able to find the lonely Hussein in a friggin hole in nowhere land. This doesn't make you wonder?

And we're completely UN able to find the seven foot tall guy in the wilds of Pakistan. Or bribe anyone enough? None of these people in the bumfuck backwaters of the world would tell us which freaking cave?

Please.

Give a guy some money he'll tell you anything. A percentage of it even true. We can google earth a zit on my ass but we have nooooo idea.

 

[WriterDom]

And we're completely UN able to find the seven foot tall guy in the wilds of Pakistan. Or bribe anyone enough? None of these people in the bumfuck backwaters of the world would tell us which freaking cave?

Please.

Give a guy some money he'll tell you anything. A percentage of it even true. We can google earth a zit on my ass but we have nooooo idea.

50 million isn't enough. But you have to be careful. There is probably a price that al-Qaeda would sell him out for. What's more valuable to al-Qeada? Him or a billion dollars? The Jahad goes on with or without him.

 

[Primalex]

Take a geography lesson. Iraq is pretty much a desert. Afghanistan has some of the most extreme terrain on earth.

Afghanistan is a very interesting topic. I know it won't make you wonder, because thinking is not your favorite tool, but let's see...

Osama is suspected to be in Afghanistan. So we invade it Oct 2001. Oh okay, while we are here, we put in new people in charge and because we know that we are the invaders and need support, we persuade the UN to install the ISAF force there, to keep the unwanted government alive.

Osama is suspected to be in Iraq and Hussein his buddy. So Iraq is invaded. He is not there and later everyone says that Hussein and Bin Laden/AQ never worked together at all - oh well, shit happens. Let's put in a new government, install the next international force there and hope everything works well until the new government is accepted.

Iran. Ha! Iran is supporting the terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, therefore AQ and Osama - we say so, it must be true. Can you see what will happen next? Noooo... this is all just coincidence. And things like TP-AJAX didn't happen and don't happen these days at all. Nooo...

 

[Homburg]

Iran. Ha! Iran is supporting the terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, therefore AQ and Osama - we say so, it must be true. Can you see what will happen next? Noooo... this is all just coincidence. And things like TP-AJAX didn't happen and don't happen these days at all. Nooo...

I think the current administration won't be around long enough to do the same stupidity with Iran.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ&feature=related

 

[WriterDom]

Osama was suspected to be in Iraq? Never heard that anywhere before.


Iran was the greater evil. But to invade Iran, we'd have to draft a million men. And probably take Vietnam type causalities. Iraq was doable. And the world is a better place with Saddam in the ground. Along with his crazy sons.

But when you are fighting a religion than countries don't really matter anyway. Iraq is just another front in the war. We could leave tomorrow and it would just be a longer camel ride to fight us somewhere else.

 

[Netzach]

I think the current administration won't be around long enough to do the same stupidity with Iran.

I think there would be a military coup, frankly.

The bear may not be an official bear any longer, but it's not sleeping.

 

[Homburg]

I think there would be a military coup, frankly.

The bear may not be an official bear any longer, but it's not sleeping.

I don't know that I would mind that sort of coup if that were the reason behind it.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

The bear may not be an official bear any longer, but it's not sleeping.

*nods* It will act in its own self interests and a nuke aimed aimed at it would force action.

 

[Primalex]

Osama was suspected to be in Iraq? Never heard that anywhere before.

I recommend the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq".

Iran was the greater evil. But to invade Iran, we'd have to draft a million men. And probably take Vietnam type causalities. Iraq was doable. And the world is a better place with Saddam in the ground.

Yeah, we have seen how Iran became "better" after we removed the elected government there. The invasion plans are just there to visit a good old friend, hm?

 

[Kennundrum]

China can in no way project force like the USA can. China has nukes. Nukes rock at wrecking your opponent from distance. Yay. Nukes can't take ground. Neither can China, as it cannot get it's forces across the Pacific meaningfully.

So while China is an economic superpower, and influential politically, it honestly lacks the full military capability to be a proper "great" superpower. The EU is an economic powerhouse much like China, but, similar to China, it cannot project force in the same way. The only other nation-state that could project power similarly was the USSR, and, well, they just don't have it together anymore.

So you agree China could nuke the US, and to use your words "Nukes rock at wrecking your opponent from distance" (sic). So China could wreck the US from a distance- sounds like a severe projection of force to me. No, not in the same way the US would attempt it, but severe all the same.

Being loved is no requirement to be great. John McEnroe was not loved, yet was unequivocably one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

Not defending the argument vis a vis China and being loved, just saying that being loved is not a worthwhile metric to measure superpower or great.

Nice comparison - John McEnroe was the emotionally and mentally unstable oaf of the tennis circuit, America is the mentally and emotionally unstable oaf of global politics.

To move away from the comedy though, if you go back and *read* the definition of a superpower, it requires influence. I said to have influence, a superpower must be "loved, respected, *OR* feared". Notice I've made the "*OR*" stand out for you now. It's a different word to "and". It's the subtleties that make the English language, but I wouldn't expect an American to notice.

China's history is basically meaningless on the world stage. China has respect because it is massive, wealthy, and influential. And, if you have the misfortune of sharing a border or coastal waterway with it, it is also bloody dangerous.

Meaningless to who? Americans? You? China is progressing, in comparison to it's history, in the field of human rights. America's attrocities in regards to human rights get worse with every generation, and in true American fashion, anyone who appears to be rectifying this imbalance is assassinated. Don't mistake me, I'm not keen for global Chinese domination any more than I am American- I find both ideas repulsive- but China is currently only using their military to oppress what it considers to be it's rightful territory. Can the USA say the same?

This is really far off the mark. Almost absurdly so, in fact. Naval power is THE single necessary power to achieve to properly project force. Yes, truly long-distance air power can bomb the bejeebers out of an enemy power, and nukes can flatten large tracts of land, but effective military operations, and thus force projection, requires boots on the ground, plain and simple. The only really efficient and effective way to put boots on the ground with full support is by water.

Water means carriers, as no better form of force projection exists on the seas, and that force projection is required to defend troop/equipment ships. Carriers are too flexible, too useful, and have an incredible range of effect.

And $160m/year is worth it to pay for them. You are looking for ways to undercut carriers, but when you look at how bloody useful they are, the cost is worth it. There's nothing out there that can come close to doing what a proper carrier can do. Look at that computer on your desk. Yep, it's valuable, but a $3 hammer will smash the crap out of it. Does the existence of that $3 hammer somehow invalidate the worth of your computer?

Properly project force eh? According to who's definition of proper? I'm sure the it would be accepted as a proper projection of force to "bomb the bejeebers out of an enemy power", while using nuclear weapons to "flatten large tracts of land". As for your cute hammer analogy, if I was depending on my 11 PCs to defend my house, and there were 70 odd hammers out there, with proven records of being able to sneak up on my PC and break it, yep I'd consider that fairly threatening.

We are fucking up in the economic arena. That said, China will not allow us to slide too far, and it is so weird to say that. They need the US to be functional to keep their economy functional.

So you're dependant on China to keep financially afloat? And dependant on your economy to keep your carriers afloat... The USA is sounding more and more like "the world's great superpower" by the second...

You have gone far too far here. China, as I said, cannot project force properly. They can no more invade us than I can jump out of my chair and fly around the room. The only parties that have anything meaningful to fear from China militarily are those with the misfortune to share a border with them.

As to the EU, the same thing goes. The EU could not meaningfully engage the US. Force projection is what it boils down to.

So, please explain how the US military is overrated, when the key component that really makes the military functional outside its' own borders, the Navy, is so incredibly dominant on the world scene that there are no meaningful comparisons possible?

Yup, you sure did say "properly". China doesn't need to invide what it can anihilate. As pointed out already, the all powerful US Navy isn't as all powerful as you'd like to believe. China has the capacity to hold it's own vs the US Navy, while displaying what you would consider an improper projection of force. They wouldn't fight fair, nor would they fight on America's terms, they would simply fight effectively.

While I will agree that it is a superpower in decline, until china or the EU can boast a navy worth a damn, or some other way to put troops across the ocean in serious, supported numbers, I'm just not going to consider either a truly great superpower.

Editted to add: I am not arguing that the US is the world's only superpower, nor am I saying that it is the greatest. I am, however, saying that military force is a major part of being a superpower, and that force is only as good as how far you can project it.

China has a Navy worth a damn. In addition to this they have greater financial and political influence than the US, and plenty of allies who are more than keen to get involved in removing the USA from the map. I appreciate you conceding several points in your reply, but it's only blind nationalism that prevents you from accepting the whole truth.

blah blah blah ...

Seems like there are plenty of Naval experts who disagree with you. What were your credentials in the Navy?

 

[Kennundrum]

China's growth is being wiped out by the damage they are doing to their environment. Not to mention the problem of taking care of 1.3 billion people. Millions of them making less that 100 dollars a month. They'll never reach parody with the US. Not unless there is a revolt and communism is shouted down. Still that might be a couple of hundred years down the road.

Look at the collapsing US economy, look at the booming Chinese economy, look at the statement made by your countryman Homburg (who appears to almost grasp reality, when compared to you).

You obviously don't understand global economics. That's not your fault though, your lack of comprehension is probably just a result of the education cutbacks in the USA, due to it's collapsing financial situation.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

Seems like there are plenty of Naval experts who disagree with you. What were your credentials in the Navy?

While not being a naval expert, I do know a thing or two about naval strategy - military history/tactics/weapons are a hobby of mine. And while I'm sure that there are general concerns about the PLAN's expansion but alot of those news pieces are planted in the press by the DoD to elicite more money from Congress. Am I accusing someone of outright lying? No. But we all know that the squeeky wheel gets the grease (whatever the saying is).

Btw.. besides being able to google.. what is YOUR expertise in all this? Or are you somebody's alt come to play devil's advocate?

 

[Kennundrum]

While not being a naval expert, I do know a thing or two about naval strategy - military history/tactics/weapons are a hobby of mine. And while I'm sure that there are general concerns about the PLAN's expansion but alot of those news pieces are planted in the press by the DoD to elicite more money from Congress. Am I accusing someone of outright lying? No. But we all know that the squeeky wheel gets the grease (whatever the saying is).

Btw.. besides being able to google.. what is YOUR expertise in all this? Or are you somebody's alt come to play devil's advocate?

Maybe you do know a thing or two about naval strategy, but every claim you've made in this debate so far has been disagreed with by multiple experts in the field.

As for who I am, I'm not claiming to be an expert, I'm simply quoting the opinions of recognised experts, as opposed to crapping on at length based on knowledge obtained as a result of a (lol) hobby.

No, I'm not somebody's alt come to play anything. Someone near and dear to me let me know this debate/debacle was taking place, and asked if I'd like to be involved.


Which prompts me to get back on topic; Alan Hart, BBC correspondent, gave a nice speech about the Zionist movement. You probably didn't hear about it on Fox News, so here's a link.

 

[Homburg]

Before I get started, calm the fuck down. My tone was not combative, I cast no aspersions on any country or entity, and agreed with some of your assertions. Your "all Americans are idiots" tone is played out, and does nothing whatsoever to support your points. Frankly, it makes you sound like just another alt-troll. I'm going to reply to this solely because you do have some ideas worth exploring, but, geeze, back off it. Ad hominems are a bullshit way to conduct a discussion.

So you agree China could nuke the US, and to use your words "Nukes rock at wrecking your opponent from distance" (sic). So China could wreck the US from a distance- sounds like a severe projection of force to me. No, not in the same way the US would attempt it, but severe all the same.

No, use of nukes is not projection of force in the sense that I am talking. Nukes are a blanket threat, not a specific one. In the modern day, nukes are a card in the political and diplomatic high stakes poker game. No sane nation-state would use them as it would immediately makr them as a rogue nation with nuclear capabilities, and thus put them on top of every nuclear power's target list.

Projection of force, in the sense that I am referring to, is the direct and spefici ability to place precise military power on target away from one's borders. An example would be China's navy currently being fully capable of profecting force over Taiwan. China could easily reach out and swat Taiwan. This means they are capable of projecting force there. China could possibly do so to Japan (though they would have more of a fight on their hands). Their navy can deliver men and munitions to the shores of Japan.

They could not do so to, for example, Great Britain. They do not have a meaningful way to project force over Great Britain, thus they cannot exert that sort of influence over GB.

Any nuclear power can apply force to any other power on the planet, in theory. Applying force is different from projecting force in that the application of force does not do good things for one's diplomatic maneuvering. Projecting force, or the threat of force, is very much a big help.

And, again, nukes aren't in the same ballfield. Warfare is not about flatteining your opponent. That is useless, and, again, would result in rogue nation status. We could have "bombed Afghanistan into the stone age" as the jingoists are fond of saying. It would have gained us nothing whatsoever, even if it might have somehow magically ended the threat of terrorism as the jingoists seem to posit.

So we are looking at the difference in projection and application. China, and the other nascent superpowers, suffer in that area, in comparison.

Nice comparison - John McEnroe was the emotionally and mentally unstable oaf of the tennis circuit, America is the mentally and emotionally unstable oaf of global politics.

Bush the Lesser is at the helm. What else would you expect?

To move away from the comedy though, if you go back and *read* the definition of a superpower, it requires influence. I said to have influence, a superpower must be "loved, respected, *OR* feared". Notice I've made the "*OR*" stand out for you now. It's a different word to "and". It's the subtleties that make the English language, but I wouldn't expect an American to notice.

I've an American ass, and I invite you to either curb your tone and discuss the matter intelligently, as you seem capable of doing so, or to kiss it.

And my point was not to focus on any of that and simply to point out that being loved is not a useful metric. Definitional arguments are weak.

Meaningless to who? Americans? You? China is progressing, in comparison to it's history, in the field of human rights. America's attrocities in regards to human rights get worse with every generation, and in true American fashion, anyone who appears to be rectifying this imbalance is assassinated. Don't mistake me, I'm not keen for global Chinese domination any more than I am American- I find both ideas repulsive- but China is currently only using their military to oppress what it considers to be it's rightful territory. Can the USA say the same?

Call me crazy, but aside from the typical ass-kissing opening statements of career diplomats, no one gives a toss about China's history beyond the past 60-100 years or so, same, essentially, as any other country. Qin Shi Huang may have been a badass, but he is as relevant to modern politics as George Washington is when dealing with America. Which is to say that he is a nice symbol, but doesn't present hard data on what Bush the Lesser or Hu Jintao are going to do tomorrow.

Properly project force eh? According to who's definition of proper? I'm sure the it would be accepted as a proper projection of force to "bomb the bejeebers out of an enemy power", while using nuclear weapons to "flatten large tracts of land". As for your cute hammer analogy, if I was depending on my 11 PCs to defend my house, and there were 70 odd hammers out there, with proven records of being able to sneak up on my PC and break it, yep I'd consider that fairly threatening.

Again, by the definition of the concept of force projection used above. I should have explained the term better when I used it.

Your nuke article - China has slightly more nukes than France. Does this make China more relevant on the world stage? If so, what does it say about France? China is a player there, but when you look at that article, compare China to the former Soviet Union. Note that the former Soviet Union is listed as comparable to the US. The USSR had about sixteen thousand nukes. China has 400. France has 350. France.

China has more akin to Pakistan in this arena than with the US. 400 nukes is meaningful, and I don't want them pointed at my planet, but they are chump change compared to the paranoid and obssessively ludicrous stockpiles here and in the former USSR.

And subs are an issue, yup. Can't conduct your entire offense with subs though. See your own article for a blurb on that.

By the end of the decade, experts say, China will have more submarines than the United States, although it will still lag in overall
capability.

Submarines, as they mention, are efficient area-denial weapons. The Chinese, or any nation with a serious sub force, can make a body of water very expensive and dangerous to navigate. They cannot prosecute a war on an enemy power on their own.

Wikipedia, while specious, had this interesting comment on China's navy:

As part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLAN has a plan of developing a blue water navy.

Brown water navy = coastal stuff, like the US Coast Guard, and US Navy littoral and riverine work

Blue water navy = deep water capable serious ships, like those used by the navies of the US, UK, Russia, etc.

Read around. China is pushing their subs because it is their only real defense against carrier fleets. The Chinese are smart, and recognise that putting money into their own carriers right now is suicide. They can't support them. Subs, on the other hand, are cheaper, more efficient, and can be used as a deterrent. While they are not projection of force like a carrier, they do preject force in the water (and, to a lesser extent, along coastlines by cruise missiles, nukes, special forces insertion, etc). Good stuff.

But China still can't put hundreds of thousands of troops on any coast that is across blue water. Problem.

So you're dependant on China to keep financially afloat? And dependant on your economy to keep your carriers afloat... The USA is sounding more and more like "the world's great superpower" by the second...

Do you not have an understanding of world commerce? The way the money trade works? China pinning the value of the yuan to the US dollar for years, that sort of thing. China is focused on production of goods for the US market, and a pantload of our wealth and theirs is tied up in our mutual trade.

I did not say that we are dependent on China. If anything, I made clear that China needs the US. Please try your strawman elsewhere.

Yup, you sure did say "properly". China doesn't need to invide what it can anihilate. As pointed out already, the all powerful US Navy isn't as all powerful as you'd like to believe. China has the capacity to hold it's own vs the US Navy, while displaying what you would consider an improper projection of force. They wouldn't fight fair, nor would they fight on America's terms, they would simply fight effectively.

Uh, no. Subs alone do not a navy make. You google well, but you don't seem to have even a moderate grasp on naval warfare. Or military action period. I'm no expert, and don't claim to be, but I can look at China's lack of ability to place troops and understand how they cannot initiate meanginful action against anyone that does not share a border or coastline with them.

And no one fights fair. No one. China does not have a magical well of Dirty Tricks that no one else can tap.

China has a Navy worth a damn.

No, they do not. Wikipedia again, sorry, but it was the first thing I found, and was in line with articles I've read in various print sources. The largest class of ship that the PLAN floats are destroyers. Destroyers. Say it with me - destroyers.

Classes above destroyers include light cruisers, cruisers, battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, battleships, sundry aircraft carriers, etc. The big ships. The ones that can go do the big things. Like displace more than 2500 tons or so.

The PLAN is large. Lotsa boats, but they're all little and short range. They may be third largest in the world, or something along those lines, but it is like comparing a eight hundred VW Bugs to a thousand Volvo tractor-trailers. Shure, there are almost as many vehicles there, but they aren't really comparable.

In addition to this they have greater financial and political influence than the US, and plenty of allies who are more than keen to get involved in removing the USA from the map. I appreciate you conceding several points in your reply, but it's only blind nationalism that prevents you from accepting the whole truth.

Or perhaps the fact that you've made some really bloodyminded assertions here without backing them up. You've been very focused on the negative aspect of your argument, and have ignored th epositive aspects. In other words, you put a lot of energy into attacking the US, and very little in supporting your praise for China.

And blind nationalism? What are you smoking? I'm really leaning towards toll, but I figure I will give you a fair shake even if you are an alt.

 

[Breaker_Morant]

Uh, no. Subs alone do not a navy make.
<snip> . Destroyers. Say it with me - destroyers.

While not quite a definitive Order of Battle, I think this will back up Homburg's statement. I'm assuming of course that you'll accept Global Security as a reputable source of information.

Looking down to the support vessels (amatuers study tactics, professionals study logistics), we see at most 4 underway replinshment ships from 2007 and 2020. You can't really have a force projection if your fleets have to race to their home port every few days to replinish their fuel bunkers.

Scrolling down to sub tenders, I see 2 in 07 and none after that which would seem to indicate that those 2 are at the end of their service life (can't very well project a submarine force if you can't resupply them out at sea, now can you?).

In fact, the only deep water support craft that they seem to have in abundance are ocean going tugs.

The only thing that really bothers me is the SSBNs that China is constructing.

Again, the threat is managable. I didn't say it was miniscule or next to nothing - the PLAN might sink some ships but they'll get their nose bloodied if it came down to it and then they'll not come out to fight for a good long time. Kind of like Jutland.

 

[Kennundrum]

Homburg-

Fair call, I won't tar you with the same brush as your countrymen. I'm enjoying the debate, and will leave the hostility to the fucktards who deserve it.

The debate is over whether or not America is the world's great superpower. Quite obviously I'm on the negative side of this debate, and therefore, I'm not obligated to do anything other than undermine that statement. That's how debates over statements like this work.

While I appreciate that it's not pleasant to have debates revolve around semantics, defining what exactly is being debated is of primary importance. If two sides actually agree, but don't know it due to different definitions of terms used, the debate cannot move forward.

For example, projection of force is something worth defining. Wiki (an agreed usable source) has it that the US, France and the UK are all capable of power projection, and two of those three are in the EU, which has already been established to have more buying power than the US, and certainly are certainly politcally favoured globally in comparison to both the US and China.

And my point was not to focus on any of that and simply to point out that being loved is not a useful metric.

I disagree. Being loved is as useful as being feared. If the world loves you, it will protect you, side with you, assist you. In many regards, this is a superior atribute to individual military power, because, as you've put forward, excercising military power can bring a negative reaction from the rest of the globe (moot point in the China v USA argument, as neither side is loved internationally, but important in defining how someone such as the EU could be influential)


At no point in this debate have I either praised China, nor have I put forward that China is currently capable of invading America, simply that it is capable of defending itself against America. For whatever reason, possibly insecurity, everyone on the affirmative side of this debate jumped to the conclusion that my argument tranlates to "China could walk into the US and take over it now", which it couldn't. Nor could the US take over China. That seems to make them fairly equal in that sense, and supports my argument against America being the great superpower. I'm sure that the US could invade somewhere like New Zealand that has no navy, but then I don't find that particularly impressive.

My refference to China's history isn't to put them forward as saints, simply to compare their recent human rights record to America's and look in which direction both countries are trending. It shows that China is diplomatically moving comparatively forward with their human rights issues, and the USA backwards.

We've agreed that the USA is fucking up in the economic arena. China can export to more places than the USA though, the EU for example, Australia, Canada (plus many more countries no doubt) all of which have strong economic ties with China, and a combined buying power higher than the US.
However, even if what your slant on things is true, saying that China wouldn't let America's economy slip to far doesn't make America sound like the world's great superpower, it makes it appear to be a superpower in a co-dependant relationship with another superpower to stay afloat.

The rest of your post seems to revolve around the mistaken idea that I'm saying/have said that China would be the nation on the offensive in this hypothetical conflict. I'm not saying that, and clearly stated that on page 2 of this thread. My refference to nuking should be taken in the context of an American attack upon China, not the reverse.

Can it be agreed that neither nation could confidently/succesfully invade the other currently? Is it agreed that there is to a large extent a co-dependancy between both regarding their economies? Can it be agreed that America's preoccupation with war is what is undermining its once strong economy, as well as what were once strong political alliances?

We have agreed that America is a superpower in decline, do you agree China is growing as a superpower? Do you agree that the world is more likely to be influenced by the superpower on the rise, rather than the one on the slide?

The statement "America is the world's great superpower", that's what this debate is about - whether America can be said to singularly have great influence on the world. I still haven't seen anything close to a decisive/conclusive argument from the affirmative.


And offtopic, don't offer your arse to me again Homburg, I can think of plenty of things I enjoy doing to arses, kissing them isn't a pastime I engage in

 

[Breaker_Morant]

I was asked to participate in the following thread on behalf of someone who is currently unable to respond personally due to illness.

No, I'm not somebody's alt come to play anything. Someone near and dear to me let me know this debate/debacle was taking place, and asked if I'd like to be involved.

Which is it?

 

[Kennundrum]

Forgot to add-

It's not just lashing out with nukes that makes the world see any particular nation as a rogue state- invading countries with no good reason time after time will do it too. How many more times do you think the world will say "What, no WMDs again? Damn, you guys are just really unlucky at finding stuff!"?

 

[Kennundrum]

Which is it?

Both.

But in saying that, I'm assuming alt means "alternate name", or something like that. Fill me in on the local language.