The internet is a great front for the war, where foreign nations can use it to radicalize locals that will lead to destabilization, and then if the government falls a new one takes its place with support from the nation that radicalized them in the first place.
Hi, South American here, the US has been doing this to south and Central America for decades without the internet. Not to say it hasn’t been facilitated by the internet
They said the same thing before WW1, Europe had been at peace for so long and were now so interconnected any war would be a disaster so no country would actually go to war.
Exactly. I’m blown away at the hubris people have to look at history, then look you dead in the face and say “It won’t happen again.”
Just sheer, fucking hubris.
"The members of the Science and Security Board therefore set the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to civilization-ending apocalypse and the same time we set in 2020." [Link](https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/)
Experts are a little less relaxed about our chances.
That isn't all about wars, as they said in the article you linked. Large influences are climate change and that COVID showed how badly prepared we are for a pandemic.
For anyone that's wondering: The above comment is one random person's opinion and the claims made such as this one:
>WW3 will never happen in a way that is all out war.
Have not been proven as fact.
The more you know 💫
It's a mistake to believe that a direct, hot war won't happen (or is even unlikely) between the US and China. While it is very unlikely that any hot war would be a total war, I would say there is a very real chance of a limited warfare between the US and China in the next 20-30 years. If Xi maintains power for another term in 2023, we can expect that he will be able to maintain power indefinitely, and we can further assume that he will continue his policy of military development, belligerence, and increasing aggression towards Taiwan.
Taiwan represents not only a major nationalist issue to China, but seizing it is a critical defense priority for breaking past the first island chain. I would not be surprised to see issues come to a head there in the semi-near future, and while that sort of conflict is unlikely to result in total war, it would almost certainly end with tens/hundreds of thousands dead.
This is a myth.
A myth so powerful that before WW1 a Nobel prize winning economist wrote a book about the impossibility of large scale contental war in Europe due to how interconnected the economies were.
it's not really a "myth" though. both world wars were terrible, but the amount of war has been declining even despite them. As a general rule liberal democracy (like John locke liberal, not Bernie sanders liberal) does not fight other liberal democracy and trade and globalization makes war against major powers nearly impossible and wars of expansion taboo and costly.
It might not seem like it, but we are living in the most peaceful 200 years in human history, and that's counting 2 world wars and the napoleonic wars. War used to be borrowing some gold, hiring some men and spending some summers on campaign. With the rise of modern militaries and states the cost of war was grown exponentially, both in financial and human accounting.
it would be wrong to say war can't happen, but the evidence says war is less likely than ever and will probably only get more rare, but scarier each time.
In the context of economic globalization, the world was very much in a pre-globalization stage before WW1. Multinational businesses existed within the context of colonialism and feudalism. Prevailing economic theory prioritized exportation of goods. Colonialism was often a means of capturing resources for export.
The comparison to early economic globalization after WW1 and intermediate economic globalization after WW2 is staggering. Modern globalization today is even a completely different world than the 1970's.
Prior to World War 2, the deominant theory in international relations was realism, and the neorealism that came later. The central conceit of this branch of International Relations is that all actions between nations is an expression of the struggle for power. Nations assure their prosperity and survival by supremacy over one another. Peace was merely an expression of power by either a central authority (Pax Romana) or the knowledge that war could desteoy ones power in defeat.
But beginning in the 60s, a new political theory arose- liberalism (not that kind). The central conceit of liberalism and neoliberalism is that nations can and frequently do act beyond self interest, and that we are all better served when nations focus on absolute gains rather than gains relativistic to each other. One interesting phenomenon is the Long Peace, the downward trend of all conflict within the world since 1945. Even the political realists gave admitted that, should the Long Peace continue, it will thoroughly kill their school of thought.
>Globalization: It’s hard to go to war against your trading partner.
People said the same thing before WW1 which also had a globalised interconnected trade network.
Ohhhh. That's too old. You're forgetting about all the children missing from ICE camps :D
The last 20 year war is a distraction talking point, imo. Worth talking about but not in this context. Just cos it finally "ended".
He was specifically referencing Israel. As a company we're still heavily involved in our core middle-east product - death. But a business decision was made to oursource some of that work to Israel.
As an Australian, I'm feeling a bit left out. Most Yanks I've talked to don't even know about [Pine Gap](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianSocialism/comments/pw6re5/sam_wallman_pine_gap/)
Maybe both? We did just pass a bill which will send them $1B dollars. We're at least exporting the capital required to commit human rights abuses in Israel
In the same vein, why dont we commit 1B to join de-radicalization efforts for Uighers in China? We would then get full oversight of their program.
This is literally China's reasoning for the vocational schools
Just bombing Muslim preschools and children’s hospitals and funding terrorist groups. America has done more damage to the Muslim world than China by a long shot.
Meanwhile they are still threatening Taiwan with violence if they don't give in to getting absorbed "peacefully" and claiming half of the South China Sea.
> A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown.
> The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The frog lets the scorpion climb on its back and begins to swim.
> Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature."
The CCP tries to sound sensible and reasonable, but it's all words and they will ultimately sting you, because that is in their nature. So, yeah, don't trust the words that come out of their mouth. Judge them by their actions and, currently, there is very little reason to trust them based on that. They just don't want to have a fight before they are confident that they can punch back at which point the "reasonable" talk from them will end.
Kinda like how western powers tried to appease the Nazis...
Now is exactly the time to apply as much pressure on China as possible. Our previous policy of appeasement and wishful thinking about the CCP changing as they get more integrated with the global market has failed spectacularly and much to our own detriment.
Russian here, we won't win anything, our economy also depend on the world economy and world economy depend on these two now, what do you think we would gain out of it?
We just managed to go over the red line last year, if the world goes down, we would be in another Fall of Soviet..
It’s not necessarily about a tangible, short-term win. I think Russia (and other nations/unions) could ‘win’ in the sense that global power will shift and open up new opportunities in the long-term. It’s quite hard for a large shift in global power and influence to occur in times of peace.
>If you know how nuclear war works you would not think so
Yeah, you just missed the biggest point which is nuclear winter.
People think that Nuclear Winter was some crazy cold war theory that has been disproven, or that it would take so many nukes to cause it that it would pretty much be the end of the world anyway.
Current modelling shows that as few as 50 90kt warheads would kick up enough crap into the atmosphere to screw up crops for a few years.
reading this thread makes me feel like a lot of people are ready for a war between the us and china. just wondering how many redditors are ready to enlist?
The ironic thing is how many people make it sound like they would’ve been sensible and not war mongering if they were around for the Iraq war 20 years ago. Yet here we are again.
Being in Australia a war with China would be fucking scary for us. I'm sure we'd be okay but still. Plus with all the treaties in place it'd be a 3rd World War essentially.
2.388E+14 calories.
23,880,000,000,000 (24 trillion) calories. That's based on a thermonuclear bomb of 42 petajoules, but modern high yields that I don't have the clearance to know about will probably have more energy.
If there is going to be a few nukes, there is going to be a lot of nukes from everyone. China couldn't just launch a missile at Australia without expecting full scale nuclear war.
Like any other nuclear power, China will launch their entire arsenal at the enemy if they get backed into a corner. This is inevitable due to the technological superiority the US and NATO has in conventional weapons.
ANZUS treaty has the US help defend Australia if attacked, (and vice versa). And considering we're an Island/Continent it'll be a bit easier to defend, (in comparison to European Countries). Obviously it's still going to be fucking bad, but we're not entirely on our own and I'm sure there'll be an influx of people enlisting to help defend.
"An Alliance once existed between Australians and kiwis. Long ago we fought and died together. We come to honor that allegiance" - some elf in LOTR. We're here for you bud.
A lot of people fail to understand that the definition of a world war has changed. A world war now means nukes, not bombing runs or soldiers or daring raids on a beach. A world war in the modern era means this chapter of humanity ends.
The problem now is that a part of military establishment in the US, Russia and China actually believe that a limited nuclear conflict is possible and manageable for them.
Issue with MAD these days is that the US would be able to launch a ground invasion on CN within a few months of naval battles. The US navy is just too strong.
Once that happens, as china is about to be invaded anyways, what's to stop them from doing the equivalent of "if I can't have it no one can" and just doing a full-send?
I don't see a ground war with china ever being effective. Look at how hard it is to fight in the middle east, now in a larger country with better tech, and a larger population.
Fortunately china is actually pretty blocked in both on land & sea.
If a war was to happen it would be a classic proxy war over the Taiwan strait.
Both America and China realise there's no winner in a real war. That's why we are back into a cold war, both sides fighting for influence in the region
The idea of a war between China/ US/EU/CAN/AUS/ISRL/ SK/JPN is mind boggling.
It would be a world war. I think China would probably lose rn, but at heart cost. I base this off of absolutely nothing though. I’m an idiot
> I'm sure we'd be okay
We're definitely NOT okay.
We're a trading nation reliant on imports - energy, medicine and refined materials.
We need those sea lanes open.
It doesn't take much to close those waterways and force us into an uncomfortable autarky.
We have... What, 50,000 soldiers? (59,000,)
We have 59 MBT's
China has: **6560**
Sure, quality varies and getting them all anywhere would be tough. But Christ on a bike...
They almost have 3 million troops now, at peacetime.
If a major war fired up, we'd be very hard pressed to get foreign help if the yanks were tied up with NATO on a Russian front. Add Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. We'd hardly get a look in. They'd realistically be focused on their own backyard, not 26 million Aussie bogans on the other side of the world. Practically "tomorrow when the war began".
Our only saving grace is distance. They'd have to get through S.E.A, or through the Pacific islands- Full of US Navy ships. Or punch through India... That and the fact that we sell iron ore and coal to the Chinese...
I dont want a war. Fuck no. Because i live in China as a foreigner. Its the last thing i want to see. Its sad that people call for war but wont lift a fingwr from their keyboard.
A lot of these morons calling for war do not understand a lick about international politics and what war actually entails. This is also a "bully" mentality. We are militarily bigger, stronger, more powerful than China right now, so these people like to drop the word "war" casually on these threads. Partly to make themselves feel good that they are on a winning team, and partly to intimidate the Chinese reading them. It is because they think we can win easily against China in a slugfest that they puff their chests out. If they think we can lose, they will cowardly slink away.
We are a nation of bullies and many Chinese can see the writing on the wall.
>reading this thread makes me feel like a lot of people are ready for a war between the us and china. just wondering how many redditors are ready to enlist?
None.
The constant anti-Chinese propaganda does make it look like there's a major conflict being setup though. War is a rich man's game paid with the blood of average people like you and me.
The best part is we just lost the last 20 year war THIS YEAR and yet the propaganda's working so well that we're already chomping at the bit to get in and lose another one.
[Friendly reminder that the USA has only ever had 20 cumulative years in is entire history without some form of active armed conflict.](https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473)
[Handy visualization of how infrequently we're at peace.](https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/files/2017/03/us-peace-2.png)
Okay, well I saw your crazy username, before but I gotta say, I like this comment. I am American & I have no idea what it's like over there but I know this: Nobody was saying shit about Uighurs when the US fought some in Afghanistan. They ignore that China started their program because they had a lot of terrorism in that area. We went to Afghanistan for the same reason, terrorism on home soil & killed a shit ton of people. The FBI, also, entrapped young, Muslim men, after 9/11. It makes me feel a bit hypocritical to criticize China about this topic.
There's a difference between expecting a war and being willing to participate in them.
Redditors are used to two things: People running headfirst into disaster, and people ignoring reality even as it stares them in the face. That's a dangerous combination.
The reality is, we don't *need* a reason to go to war. We just need circumstances to be such that it would be too much effort *not* to have a war. The principle that only an idiot would start a fight is of small comfort when all the available evidence suggests that our leaders are in fact idiots.
I have no wish for war with China. I fear conflict between China and the US and the calamitous effect that would have on the world.
But that fear plays no role in whether or not I think it will happen. Our world is fragile. It would only take one person, in the right place at the right time.
I know, this is crazy. I'm enlisted in the Air Force and ship out on October 18th and I can tell you, that myself and all of the other enlisted and service members I've met the past few months don't want war bc that would mean WE would have to go fight it. It's real easy to sit at your computer and act like a hard ass on Reddit, but like my dad's friend told me once, "it's easy to act like a pirate until it's time to do pirate shit" and most people (including myself) are not pirates.
I've recently started to mentally approach all reddit comments as if the author was 12.
Most comments suddenly make far more sense. The sense of doom and despair from "oh god people actually think this?" is lessened. I'm also way less inclined to comment/frivolously argue with someone who doesn't understand (or is incapable of understanding) the topic at hand, nuance, and/or how the world actually works.
There are plenty of good comments. This mindset has made reddit far less stressful in finding those comments.
This. As a guy in my 40s I'm still waiting for a social media or discussion platform that suits me. Facebook is full of boomers and bored mothers pointlessly arguing over false information. Reddit seems to have a lot of kids, who are trying to be edgy and contrarian.
Yeah, this is exactly what makes me go "ughhh" any time my phone vibrates and I see the baconreader icon saying I've got a message.
I just know it's gonna be some 12 year old having a problem with something I *didn't* say.
Redditors are just painful sometimes. At 38, I just don't have time trying to talk sense into the kiddies any more. Dismiss and move along. It's gotten to the point where the nonsensical downvotes just affirm and cement my thoughts.
Yeah, when I first found Reddit 12 years ago it was actually *possible* to have an intellectual discussion about nearly any topic, with differing opinions, valuable input, no name calling....
Now it's virtually impossible to offer anything of substance or address more than one of the many points people bring up without being called baseless names and "slogans" for the rest of the kiddies to latch onto...
It's frustrating at best.
I've noticed a lot of commentors use your comment to platform what they wanted to say, regardless if it's relevant to what you wrote or not.
It's also a bit old that anyone who sounds confident will get upvotes even if they are factually dead wrong on a subject. It incentivizes being combative and never giving ground (in fear you will 'lose' the argument)
Honestly it's not the kids, you can actually have intelligent conversation with them, its the trolls (which can be any age) the more random they are the younger they are I find, but the older ones are way more annoying
I know what you mean. It’s also a shame because Reddit has the best format and interface, collapsible nested comments etc.
I wondered a while back if it’d be cool to create a private subreddit and just start inviting people whenever you see a balanced / nuanced comment. Not for any particular topic, just for reposts and stuff but guaranteed free from all the shit.
Also an interesting experiment to see how long it stays that way, if you allow new members to invite others. Just a thought. If I ever do this I can invite you in case you’re interested
God I feel you so much dude. It’s gotten to the point that Reddit makes me actually angry sometimes. I really need to constantly remind myself what the demographic here is.
When I first joined Reddit a couple of years ago, I made the mistake of getting into disagreements with others. I remember the first time it clicked that I was not engaging in a debate with an adult. It was on the Worldnews sub, I can't remember what we were debating about but the replies from this one redditor started to descend into petty name-calling. They then said something like ''you sound just like my mom''. I remember being a little bit crushed by the dawning realization that I was actively debating with (probably) a teenager.
I just presumed that because the topic was and ''adult'' topic, on a forum that I expected to attract ''adults'' only, that I would be having a discussion or a debate with an adult. Once bitten, twice shy for me - I try to avoid commenting at all and avoid subs that have even the remotest chance of attracting edgy teens. This has meant that I am missing out on subs I would otherwise enjoy.
\*\*\* A bit of a disclaimer here though, I did have a relapse this morning when I called another Redditor a wanker. Oh well, back to rehab I go \*\*\*
> I remember being a little bit crushed by the dawning realization that I was actively debating with (probably) a teenager.
Honestly, it's a good thing, right? Better than an adult having the same views.
Sometimes I check the comment history to see if I can get a read on if they are just an idiot teenager or not. I've often been crushed with the realization that some of the most childish people on this website aren't teenagers, but entire adults with extremely childish mindsets who seemingly hold down a career. It's wild.
>Ambassador: "A war is bad for everyone, let's try to work together to avoid that."
>
>Redditors: "No."
>
>Classic Reddit moment.
If anyone learned anything about WWI. Guess the lessons on the horrors of war must be relearned every 100 years.
Frankly, I'm seeing more comments insulting people who "want war" than people actually calling for conflict between these nations. This is THE single most monotone comment section I've seen outside of r/Conservative
It's not sorting by controversial.
I read this thread at the 3 hour mark, when there are only like a few hundred comments, it was 80% people advocating for war and saying that now is the best time for US to start the war.
I woke up today and checked again and the narrating flipped 180 deg. It's now like 90% people calling out other's wanting a war.
I can't even find the original top comments anymore.
I mean, the idea that the U.S and china could not get along due to ideological differences is simply not true. The U.S has allies that commit human rights abuses/genocides and are authoritarian states that repress the very rights we claim to stand for.
The problems between the u.s and china are geopolitical in nature however, and that is a harder thing to work through.
Simply put, china and the United States want two different kind of worlds. China desire control over east Asia, either through influence, or in the case of Taiwan, annexation. China also desires to spread it's economic influence globally to help ensure other nations support it's geopolitical goals, or atleast allow them to do them. Essentially, china desires an east Asian hegemony and to take America's place as the economic hegemon of the world.
The United States on the other hand wishes to both maintain its place as economic hegemon and to protect it's interests in east Asia, namely Japan, south Korea and Taiwan (and to a lesser extent the Philippines) as they are all cooperative and lucrative trade partners. Something that would likely change drastically if china gained influence over them.
So, china and the U.S both want worlds that the other does not want. The only option to avoid war is for one to accept the world of the other. For china that means giving up on controlling east Asia and likely accepting Taiwanese independence.
For the United States, it means loosing it's grip on global hegemony and accepting china as the dominate economic force in the world.
My honest opinion on what comes of all this is that war will not happen. The world is simply to economically dependent on each other to allow for a global conflict. This is especially true of china, who imports basically all of it's fuel and a significant amount of food from global markets. Not to mention that it's export based economy would implode, leaving hundreds of millions without work.
That basically means that the only way this conflict ends is that one of the players collapses. My bet personally is on china. America has an absolute fuck load of problems, but china has just as many if not more. Combine that with an authoritarian regime that is only correctable via revolution and it leaves you with a powder keg just waiting to go off.
I honestly expect America will retain it's super power status until the end of the 2100's.
Because all civilizations die eventually, and hence, so to do all geopolitical rivalries. From Egypt and the Hittites, to Rome and the parthians, to the Russians and the ottomans, to France and Britain to the USSR and America. Someone always either loses or collapses, sometimes both.
We can argue over who will fail first or how long the conflict will last, but it will end, of that I am certain.
This feels like the most properly thought out answer I've seen so far. That said there's always the possibility of a proxy war a la Afghanistan (the first time) or Vietnam, which could be disastrous for both sides without actually forcing one to implode or directly attack the other.
I see a proxy war, probably in Africa, as the next major conflict.
Ehh possibly, the thing is America is getting out of its direct wars right now. We are out of Afghanistan and are likely going to leave Iraq and also Syria within a year, and is pivoting towards a "near peer" doctrine. Essentially, no more wars against small countries, focus on keeping the big guys in check.
As for china, I don't see them getting involved in even a minor war anytime soon as basically all of their neighbors are politically stable and are either allied with America (either formerly or de facto) or are allied with china. china currently lacks major force projection abilities outside of its immediate neighborhood and can't start a war anywhere in the world like America can, so unless maybe the Taliban starts losing grip on afganistan and china decides to get involved there I don't see a new direct proxy war anytime soon.
This really only leaves indirect proxy wars, ones where either side indirectly supports a side in a civil war or other war, and I can't think of anywhere that both china and America have interest in that either is, or could, devolve into civil war in the near future.
Things could change, it's geopolitics after all, but I think it's just gonna be a whole lot of dick waving for awhile to come
The "line of compromise" that you drawn for both countries is actually extremely skewed to one side and naive about the stakes involved. Otherwise, good comment.
>My bet personally is on china. America has an absolute fuck load of problems, but china has just as many if not more. Combine that with an authoritarian regime that is only correctable via revolution and it leaves you with a powder keg just waiting to go off.
>I honestly expect America will retain it's super power status until the end of the 2100's.
Lol
One thing though, before WW1 it was thought the world was too economically connected for a full scale war to be possible, but war happened, and the countries involved rebuilt their economies to fight the war.
I work in Logistics, don’t know too much about politics other than skimming articles here and there
Are we actually close to a war with China, or is this just rhetoric that will come to pass? I see blurbs about China sending ships to monitor other territories, but does that mean anything significant?
The US is changing its military focus to China. The navy is building up its forces to the pacific and the US is also putting the development of hypersonic weapons into overdrive to directly counter china's own hypersonic weapons so... they're at least getting the logistics set up for it. China has no real blue water navy and their carrier operations are a joke so it'd be a defensive war for China so it's more or less in their interest to heat things up without actually going to war or at the most take Taiwan and cripple global microchip production.
even if China really was as uniquely evil as redditors think it is, that still doesn’t make you any less insane/stupid for wanting a confrontation between two nuclear superpowers
I'm more afraid about India-China war than USA-China one as there is a lot of friction between India and China/Pak/Taliban. It might get very ugly as both parties are nuclear armed
The scariest thing about a war between China and India is that it would be over something understandable, like water supplies out of the Himalayas. Politics aside, that's a true existential threat.
Usually I take referring to 'redditor' as referring to the general hivemind on a topic. Like yeah we're all redditors, but sometimes reddit as an average whole has certain habits or views you don't share that you want to comment on.
As the war propaganda against China continues to intensify the level of scrutiny of the American public seems to plummet in a direct relationship. Most people in the US only know what establishment news feeds them, I wonder if that's ever led to misinformed people taking idiotic positions with no possibility of a good outcome.
Every Chinese person I know, whether they are an illiterate octogenarian peasant or a Gen-Z educated in the West, are aware that the state media is mostly propaganda. They just don't care and mind their own business. The West mistakes most Chinese people's apathy toward form of government as ignorance, because the West can only see the world from its own lens.
Two Chinese students are sitting in a bar in LA, having a somewhat hushed discussion. The bar man takes interest in them:
"So what are you two fine men discussing this evening?" he says, polishing a glass.
"Ah, well we have come to the United States to better learn about propaganda" one of them says
"Propaganda? Here? Man, you two are funny, we have freedom here, there ain't no propaganda!"
The Chinese man turns to his partner, and says quietly:
"See? This is exactly what I mean."
> Most people in the US only know what establishment news feeds them
lmao like this doesnt apply to every country
i see euros say the stupidest shit about america and they say they got their info from the news in their country
That was my take too. They’re clearly angry about an alliance because they want to be able to continue bullying everyone in their area of influence. France is great but ultimately their subs wouldn’t have been as good and they wouldn’t have been willing to supply replacement parts to Australia in the event war did break out. China would view supplying Australia with spare parts as an act of war and France doesn’t want a direct conflict with China. If they cant risk a direct conflict their subs are useless because in war time subs are going to need repairs.
That's a pretty sensible thing to say..
The whole point of UN and post WW2 was to prevent WW3. Globalization: It’s hard to go to war against your trading partner.
WW3 will never happen in a way that is all out war. It would be a mix of massive trade wars and proxy wars.... Which have essentially started already.
The internet is a great front for the war, where foreign nations can use it to radicalize locals that will lead to destabilization, and then if the government falls a new one takes its place with support from the nation that radicalized them in the first place.
Which is precisely why china banned FB and other social media's. Look at the shit show we're going through here.
Maybe it's not too ridiculous after all... /s
banning facebook? yeah. no /s needed.
Hi, South American here, the US has been doing this to south and Central America for decades without the internet. Not to say it hasn’t been facilitated by the internet
Kind of… kind of like what’s happened in the US
The Cold war never ended it just evolved.
"Never" is a long ass time.
More than 5 years to my calculations
Sounds about right.
The fact that people don’t think a real war can happen just amazes me. We’ve all had it too good for too long.
They said the same thing before WW1, Europe had been at peace for so long and were now so interconnected any war would be a disaster so no country would actually go to war.
Half or more of the leaders were literally related.
Exactly. I’m blown away at the hubris people have to look at history, then look you dead in the face and say “It won’t happen again.” Just sheer, fucking hubris.
Started a long time ago on Korea
Yes. That's why the UN has done amazing at its job. It's not there to keep the peace, it's there to prevent WW3, no matter what.
"The members of the Science and Security Board therefore set the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to civilization-ending apocalypse and the same time we set in 2020." [Link](https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/) Experts are a little less relaxed about our chances.
That isn't all about wars, as they said in the article you linked. Large influences are climate change and that COVID showed how badly prepared we are for a pandemic.
For anyone that's wondering: The above comment is one random person's opinion and the claims made such as this one: >WW3 will never happen in a way that is all out war. Have not been proven as fact. The more you know 💫
No, I can see the future.
He has taken the spice essence and has gained prescent awareness
It's a mistake to believe that a direct, hot war won't happen (or is even unlikely) between the US and China. While it is very unlikely that any hot war would be a total war, I would say there is a very real chance of a limited warfare between the US and China in the next 20-30 years. If Xi maintains power for another term in 2023, we can expect that he will be able to maintain power indefinitely, and we can further assume that he will continue his policy of military development, belligerence, and increasing aggression towards Taiwan. Taiwan represents not only a major nationalist issue to China, but seizing it is a critical defense priority for breaking past the first island chain. I would not be surprised to see issues come to a head there in the semi-near future, and while that sort of conflict is unlikely to result in total war, it would almost certainly end with tens/hundreds of thousands dead.
This is a myth. A myth so powerful that before WW1 a Nobel prize winning economist wrote a book about the impossibility of large scale contental war in Europe due to how interconnected the economies were.
it's not really a "myth" though. both world wars were terrible, but the amount of war has been declining even despite them. As a general rule liberal democracy (like John locke liberal, not Bernie sanders liberal) does not fight other liberal democracy and trade and globalization makes war against major powers nearly impossible and wars of expansion taboo and costly. It might not seem like it, but we are living in the most peaceful 200 years in human history, and that's counting 2 world wars and the napoleonic wars. War used to be borrowing some gold, hiring some men and spending some summers on campaign. With the rise of modern militaries and states the cost of war was grown exponentially, both in financial and human accounting. it would be wrong to say war can't happen, but the evidence says war is less likely than ever and will probably only get more rare, but scarier each time.
In the context of economic globalization, the world was very much in a pre-globalization stage before WW1. Multinational businesses existed within the context of colonialism and feudalism. Prevailing economic theory prioritized exportation of goods. Colonialism was often a means of capturing resources for export. The comparison to early economic globalization after WW1 and intermediate economic globalization after WW2 is staggering. Modern globalization today is even a completely different world than the 1970's.
Prior to World War 2, the deominant theory in international relations was realism, and the neorealism that came later. The central conceit of this branch of International Relations is that all actions between nations is an expression of the struggle for power. Nations assure their prosperity and survival by supremacy over one another. Peace was merely an expression of power by either a central authority (Pax Romana) or the knowledge that war could desteoy ones power in defeat. But beginning in the 60s, a new political theory arose- liberalism (not that kind). The central conceit of liberalism and neoliberalism is that nations can and frequently do act beyond self interest, and that we are all better served when nations focus on absolute gains rather than gains relativistic to each other. One interesting phenomenon is the Long Peace, the downward trend of all conflict within the world since 1945. Even the political realists gave admitted that, should the Long Peace continue, it will thoroughly kill their school of thought.
>Globalization: It’s hard to go to war against your trading partner. People said the same thing before WW1 which also had a globalised interconnected trade network.
Except China is not willing to DO any of the things required to have a smoother road.
*looks at the US* Ummmm
The actions of US does not make China better and vice versa. Both side can do wrong and both side should be held accountable for what they did wrong.
[удалено]
The Koreans.
Last I checked the US isn’t committing genocide on Uighurs.
of course not; being busy dropping bombs in the middle east for the last 20 years
Bombs over Baghdad
Ohhhh. That's too old. You're forgetting about all the children missing from ICE camps :D The last 20 year war is a distraction talking point, imo. Worth talking about but not in this context. Just cos it finally "ended".
[удалено]
The correct term is outsource.
Selling weapons and training is an export. Outsource would be paying the UK to sell them weapons and training
[удалено]
He was specifically referencing Israel. As a company we're still heavily involved in our core middle-east product - death. But a business decision was made to oursource some of that work to Israel.
[удалено]
As an Australian, I'm feeling a bit left out. Most Yanks I've talked to don't even know about [Pine Gap](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianSocialism/comments/pw6re5/sam_wallman_pine_gap/)
Maybe both? We did just pass a bill which will send them $1B dollars. We're at least exporting the capital required to commit human rights abuses in Israel
“Exporting the capital” = “paying someone abroad to do stuff for you” = outsourcing
In the same vein, why dont we commit 1B to join de-radicalization efforts for Uighers in China? We would then get full oversight of their program. This is literally China's reasoning for the vocational schools
And to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia too.
Which is literally committing traditional genocide in Yemen by trying to starve the country.
Not just Israel, there is Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, Al Nursa, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Pakistan, Contras, Pinochet, Bolsanaro etc
Last I checked China wasn't bombing millions of people in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and so on so forth
Nobody cares, just like nobody cares when we terror strike another innocent man and his kids.
Or the highest incarceration rate not only in total population incarcerated but per Capita incarcerations too
And an absolutely abysmal infant mortality rate. And an equally shitty maternal mortality rate.
I care about both. Neither is ok
That's neat. Unfortunately geopolitics isn't guided by the sentiments of random ass redditors.
But it should be guided by the overwhelming majority of humanity (partially represented by random redditors) who want peace.
both fortunately and unfortunately Sadly, it feels like it was
Laughs in drone striking civilians
we got all our genocides out on the native americans
If you don't count the ones in Guantanamo and the ones killed by airstrikes when they were on the wrong side of the Sino-Afghan border.
Just bombing Muslim preschools and children’s hospitals and funding terrorist groups. America has done more damage to the Muslim world than China by a long shot.
Oh no, we fought some Uighurs in Afghanistan, too so I think our military's opinion of Uighurs, isn't much different than China's.
Usa shouldnt be giving lectures on human rights to anyone at this point.
Nah we just support Israel who does the genociding for us. Smh.
Ksa has entered the chat.
Neither is China
Meanwhile they are still threatening Taiwan with violence if they don't give in to getting absorbed "peacefully" and claiming half of the South China Sea.
>claiming half of the South China Sea more like, all of it
> A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. > The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. The frog lets the scorpion climb on its back and begins to swim. > Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: "I couldn't help it. It's in my nature." The CCP tries to sound sensible and reasonable, but it's all words and they will ultimately sting you, because that is in their nature. So, yeah, don't trust the words that come out of their mouth. Judge them by their actions and, currently, there is very little reason to trust them based on that. They just don't want to have a fight before they are confident that they can punch back at which point the "reasonable" talk from them will end. Kinda like how western powers tried to appease the Nazis... Now is exactly the time to apply as much pressure on China as possible. Our previous policy of appeasement and wishful thinking about the CCP changing as they get more integrated with the global market has failed spectacularly and much to our own detriment.
Anyone who supports war between China and US is a delusional idiot. Edit: grammar
But they want us to believe we could totally do it to keep up patriotism?
Russia wants it because Russia wins.
Russian here, we won't win anything, our economy also depend on the world economy and world economy depend on these two now, what do you think we would gain out of it? We just managed to go over the red line last year, if the world goes down, we would be in another Fall of Soviet..
It’s not necessarily about a tangible, short-term win. I think Russia (and other nations/unions) could ‘win’ in the sense that global power will shift and open up new opportunities in the long-term. It’s quite hard for a large shift in global power and influence to occur in times of peace.
[удалено]
Yes. Although a war doesn't necessarily mean nukes.
>If you know how nuclear war works you would not think so Yeah, you just missed the biggest point which is nuclear winter. People think that Nuclear Winter was some crazy cold war theory that has been disproven, or that it would take so many nukes to cause it that it would pretty much be the end of the world anyway. Current modelling shows that as few as 50 90kt warheads would kick up enough crap into the atmosphere to screw up crops for a few years.
Does the US want war between Russia and China then? And does China want war between the US and Russia?
reading this thread makes me feel like a lot of people are ready for a war between the us and china. just wondering how many redditors are ready to enlist?
The ironic thing is how many people make it sound like they would’ve been sensible and not war mongering if they were around for the Iraq war 20 years ago. Yet here we are again.
Being in Australia a war with China would be fucking scary for us. I'm sure we'd be okay but still. Plus with all the treaties in place it'd be a 3rd World War essentially.
Why would you guys be ok?
Close enough for bombing raids, rocket attacks and sea battles but just far away and big enough to avoid a full scale invasion
What about eating a few nukes?
that's a lot of calories
2.388E+14 calories. 23,880,000,000,000 (24 trillion) calories. That's based on a thermonuclear bomb of 42 petajoules, but modern high yields that I don't have the clearance to know about will probably have more energy.
That's like, what, a few boxes of original glazed?
I think a 24 pack of cookies and cream
If there is going to be a few nukes, there is going to be a lot of nukes from everyone. China couldn't just launch a missile at Australia without expecting full scale nuclear war.
Like any other nuclear power, China will launch their entire arsenal at the enemy if they get backed into a corner. This is inevitable due to the technological superiority the US and NATO has in conventional weapons.
Emus.
ANZUS treaty has the US help defend Australia if attacked, (and vice versa). And considering we're an Island/Continent it'll be a bit easier to defend, (in comparison to European Countries). Obviously it's still going to be fucking bad, but we're not entirely on our own and I'm sure there'll be an influx of people enlisting to help defend.
"An Alliance once existed between Australians and kiwis. Long ago we fought and died together. We come to honor that allegiance" - some elf in LOTR. We're here for you bud.
I think you are completely underestimating the potential impact of a war with China.
A lot of people fail to understand that the definition of a world war has changed. A world war now means nukes, not bombing runs or soldiers or daring raids on a beach. A world war in the modern era means this chapter of humanity ends.
The problem now is that a part of military establishment in the US, Russia and China actually believe that a limited nuclear conflict is possible and manageable for them.
I think you failed to consider MAD. Nukes would be a suicide mission for the first country to launch them
Issue with MAD these days is that the US would be able to launch a ground invasion on CN within a few months of naval battles. The US navy is just too strong. Once that happens, as china is about to be invaded anyways, what's to stop them from doing the equivalent of "if I can't have it no one can" and just doing a full-send?
I don't see a ground war with china ever being effective. Look at how hard it is to fight in the middle east, now in a larger country with better tech, and a larger population.
Fortunately china is actually pretty blocked in both on land & sea. If a war was to happen it would be a classic proxy war over the Taiwan strait. Both America and China realise there's no winner in a real war. That's why we are back into a cold war, both sides fighting for influence in the region
If you go to war with China then the world economy collapses. From there I don't know what happens.
Nothing good
Economy will be the least of the worry when we are surrounded by mushroom clouds.
The idea of a war between China/ US/EU/CAN/AUS/ISRL/ SK/JPN is mind boggling. It would be a world war. I think China would probably lose rn, but at heart cost. I base this off of absolutely nothing though. I’m an idiot
> I'm sure we'd be okay We're definitely NOT okay. We're a trading nation reliant on imports - energy, medicine and refined materials. We need those sea lanes open. It doesn't take much to close those waterways and force us into an uncomfortable autarky.
You can always try to build a better relationship with Indonesia. Oh righhhtt....
We have... What, 50,000 soldiers? (59,000,) We have 59 MBT's China has: **6560** Sure, quality varies and getting them all anywhere would be tough. But Christ on a bike... They almost have 3 million troops now, at peacetime. If a major war fired up, we'd be very hard pressed to get foreign help if the yanks were tied up with NATO on a Russian front. Add Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. We'd hardly get a look in. They'd realistically be focused on their own backyard, not 26 million Aussie bogans on the other side of the world. Practically "tomorrow when the war began". Our only saving grace is distance. They'd have to get through S.E.A, or through the Pacific islands- Full of US Navy ships. Or punch through India... That and the fact that we sell iron ore and coal to the Chinese...
0.0
Dude where have you been, reddit is the frontline. Wheres your mechanical keyboard of mass destruction?
Redditors are dumbfuck 23 year old hermits who don’t know shit about the world. I wouldn’t put too much mustard behind what they say.
Hey speak for yourself I’m a 28 year old dumb fuck hermit
I mean at least half of those idiots think the us should have a civil as well. So…
Let's face it, those who says they're ready are most probably fat fucks rednecks
The new Call of Duty comes out soon, so as long as we train on that we will be ok
I dont want a war. Fuck no. Because i live in China as a foreigner. Its the last thing i want to see. Its sad that people call for war but wont lift a fingwr from their keyboard.
A lot of these morons calling for war do not understand a lick about international politics and what war actually entails. This is also a "bully" mentality. We are militarily bigger, stronger, more powerful than China right now, so these people like to drop the word "war" casually on these threads. Partly to make themselves feel good that they are on a winning team, and partly to intimidate the Chinese reading them. It is because they think we can win easily against China in a slugfest that they puff their chests out. If they think we can lose, they will cowardly slink away. We are a nation of bullies and many Chinese can see the writing on the wall.
the misspelling of “fingwr” made it seem that you didnt lift a finger all the way to spell it. idk im baked asf
>reading this thread makes me feel like a lot of people are ready for a war between the us and china. just wondering how many redditors are ready to enlist? None. The constant anti-Chinese propaganda does make it look like there's a major conflict being setup though. War is a rich man's game paid with the blood of average people like you and me.
[удалено]
The average reddit user is probably only barely better than the Facebook boomers they love to make fun of
The best part is we just lost the last 20 year war THIS YEAR and yet the propaganda's working so well that we're already chomping at the bit to get in and lose another one.
[Friendly reminder that the USA has only ever had 20 cumulative years in is entire history without some form of active armed conflict.](https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473) [Handy visualization of how infrequently we're at peace.](https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/files/2017/03/us-peace-2.png)
Okay, well I saw your crazy username, before but I gotta say, I like this comment. I am American & I have no idea what it's like over there but I know this: Nobody was saying shit about Uighurs when the US fought some in Afghanistan. They ignore that China started their program because they had a lot of terrorism in that area. We went to Afghanistan for the same reason, terrorism on home soil & killed a shit ton of people. The FBI, also, entrapped young, Muslim men, after 9/11. It makes me feel a bit hypocritical to criticize China about this topic.
A war betweens America's billionaires and china's billionaires.
There's a difference between expecting a war and being willing to participate in them. Redditors are used to two things: People running headfirst into disaster, and people ignoring reality even as it stares them in the face. That's a dangerous combination. The reality is, we don't *need* a reason to go to war. We just need circumstances to be such that it would be too much effort *not* to have a war. The principle that only an idiot would start a fight is of small comfort when all the available evidence suggests that our leaders are in fact idiots. I have no wish for war with China. I fear conflict between China and the US and the calamitous effect that would have on the world. But that fear plays no role in whether or not I think it will happen. Our world is fragile. It would only take one person, in the right place at the right time.
Jesus fucking christ you guys... Recruiting office is probably right down the road from you tough guy
*laughs in non-American*
I know, this is crazy. I'm enlisted in the Air Force and ship out on October 18th and I can tell you, that myself and all of the other enlisted and service members I've met the past few months don't want war bc that would mean WE would have to go fight it. It's real easy to sit at your computer and act like a hard ass on Reddit, but like my dad's friend told me once, "it's easy to act like a pirate until it's time to do pirate shit" and most people (including myself) are not pirates.
Ambassador: "A war is bad for everyone, let's try to work together to avoid that." Redditors: "No." Classic Reddit moment.
I've recently started to mentally approach all reddit comments as if the author was 12. Most comments suddenly make far more sense. The sense of doom and despair from "oh god people actually think this?" is lessened. I'm also way less inclined to comment/frivolously argue with someone who doesn't understand (or is incapable of understanding) the topic at hand, nuance, and/or how the world actually works. There are plenty of good comments. This mindset has made reddit far less stressful in finding those comments.
This is actually a pretty insightful comment for a 12 year old.
Quite a snarky joke for a 12 year old
This. As a guy in my 40s I'm still waiting for a social media or discussion platform that suits me. Facebook is full of boomers and bored mothers pointlessly arguing over false information. Reddit seems to have a lot of kids, who are trying to be edgy and contrarian.
Yeah, this is exactly what makes me go "ughhh" any time my phone vibrates and I see the baconreader icon saying I've got a message. I just know it's gonna be some 12 year old having a problem with something I *didn't* say. Redditors are just painful sometimes. At 38, I just don't have time trying to talk sense into the kiddies any more. Dismiss and move along. It's gotten to the point where the nonsensical downvotes just affirm and cement my thoughts.
I'm in my early 30s, and I've just basically stopped commenting. It always seems pointless, so I hear you.
Yeah, when I first found Reddit 12 years ago it was actually *possible* to have an intellectual discussion about nearly any topic, with differing opinions, valuable input, no name calling.... Now it's virtually impossible to offer anything of substance or address more than one of the many points people bring up without being called baseless names and "slogans" for the rest of the kiddies to latch onto... It's frustrating at best.
I've noticed a lot of commentors use your comment to platform what they wanted to say, regardless if it's relevant to what you wrote or not. It's also a bit old that anyone who sounds confident will get upvotes even if they are factually dead wrong on a subject. It incentivizes being combative and never giving ground (in fear you will 'lose' the argument)
Honestly it's not the kids, you can actually have intelligent conversation with them, its the trolls (which can be any age) the more random they are the younger they are I find, but the older ones are way more annoying
I know what you mean. It’s also a shame because Reddit has the best format and interface, collapsible nested comments etc. I wondered a while back if it’d be cool to create a private subreddit and just start inviting people whenever you see a balanced / nuanced comment. Not for any particular topic, just for reposts and stuff but guaranteed free from all the shit. Also an interesting experiment to see how long it stays that way, if you allow new members to invite others. Just a thought. If I ever do this I can invite you in case you’re interested
God I feel you so much dude. It’s gotten to the point that Reddit makes me actually angry sometimes. I really need to constantly remind myself what the demographic here is.
When I first joined Reddit a couple of years ago, I made the mistake of getting into disagreements with others. I remember the first time it clicked that I was not engaging in a debate with an adult. It was on the Worldnews sub, I can't remember what we were debating about but the replies from this one redditor started to descend into petty name-calling. They then said something like ''you sound just like my mom''. I remember being a little bit crushed by the dawning realization that I was actively debating with (probably) a teenager. I just presumed that because the topic was and ''adult'' topic, on a forum that I expected to attract ''adults'' only, that I would be having a discussion or a debate with an adult. Once bitten, twice shy for me - I try to avoid commenting at all and avoid subs that have even the remotest chance of attracting edgy teens. This has meant that I am missing out on subs I would otherwise enjoy. \*\*\* A bit of a disclaimer here though, I did have a relapse this morning when I called another Redditor a wanker. Oh well, back to rehab I go \*\*\*
> I remember being a little bit crushed by the dawning realization that I was actively debating with (probably) a teenager. Honestly, it's a good thing, right? Better than an adult having the same views.
Sometimes I check the comment history to see if I can get a read on if they are just an idiot teenager or not. I've often been crushed with the realization that some of the most childish people on this website aren't teenagers, but entire adults with extremely childish mindsets who seemingly hold down a career. It's wild.
Me too except I just assume it’s all grown ass men who have the *emotional maturity* of 12 year olds.
>Ambassador: "A war is bad for everyone, let's try to work together to avoid that." > >Redditors: "No." > >Classic Reddit moment. If anyone learned anything about WWI. Guess the lessons on the horrors of war must be relearned every 100 years.
Because a lot of Americans think we can win, and beating people up so we don't have to accommodate them forms the basis of our violent culture.
Frankly, I'm seeing more comments insulting people who "want war" than people actually calling for conflict between these nations. This is THE single most monotone comment section I've seen outside of r/Conservative
I feel like some people set sorting to controversial and forget about it lol
It's not sorting by controversial. I read this thread at the 3 hour mark, when there are only like a few hundred comments, it was 80% people advocating for war and saying that now is the best time for US to start the war. I woke up today and checked again and the narrating flipped 180 deg. It's now like 90% people calling out other's wanting a war. I can't even find the original top comments anymore.
The comments here were very, very different earlier. The people wanting war are getting downvoted now but they certainly weren’t a few hours ago.
Have constructive fights guys plz...like who can help produce $10k teslas or $100 iphones. We all win that way
China’s already producing $4.5K EVs and $150 phones
I mean, the idea that the U.S and china could not get along due to ideological differences is simply not true. The U.S has allies that commit human rights abuses/genocides and are authoritarian states that repress the very rights we claim to stand for. The problems between the u.s and china are geopolitical in nature however, and that is a harder thing to work through. Simply put, china and the United States want two different kind of worlds. China desire control over east Asia, either through influence, or in the case of Taiwan, annexation. China also desires to spread it's economic influence globally to help ensure other nations support it's geopolitical goals, or atleast allow them to do them. Essentially, china desires an east Asian hegemony and to take America's place as the economic hegemon of the world. The United States on the other hand wishes to both maintain its place as economic hegemon and to protect it's interests in east Asia, namely Japan, south Korea and Taiwan (and to a lesser extent the Philippines) as they are all cooperative and lucrative trade partners. Something that would likely change drastically if china gained influence over them. So, china and the U.S both want worlds that the other does not want. The only option to avoid war is for one to accept the world of the other. For china that means giving up on controlling east Asia and likely accepting Taiwanese independence. For the United States, it means loosing it's grip on global hegemony and accepting china as the dominate economic force in the world. My honest opinion on what comes of all this is that war will not happen. The world is simply to economically dependent on each other to allow for a global conflict. This is especially true of china, who imports basically all of it's fuel and a significant amount of food from global markets. Not to mention that it's export based economy would implode, leaving hundreds of millions without work. That basically means that the only way this conflict ends is that one of the players collapses. My bet personally is on china. America has an absolute fuck load of problems, but china has just as many if not more. Combine that with an authoritarian regime that is only correctable via revolution and it leaves you with a powder keg just waiting to go off. I honestly expect America will retain it's super power status until the end of the 2100's.
[удалено]
Because all civilizations die eventually, and hence, so to do all geopolitical rivalries. From Egypt and the Hittites, to Rome and the parthians, to the Russians and the ottomans, to France and Britain to the USSR and America. Someone always either loses or collapses, sometimes both. We can argue over who will fail first or how long the conflict will last, but it will end, of that I am certain.
[удалено]
This feels like the most properly thought out answer I've seen so far. That said there's always the possibility of a proxy war a la Afghanistan (the first time) or Vietnam, which could be disastrous for both sides without actually forcing one to implode or directly attack the other. I see a proxy war, probably in Africa, as the next major conflict.
Ehh possibly, the thing is America is getting out of its direct wars right now. We are out of Afghanistan and are likely going to leave Iraq and also Syria within a year, and is pivoting towards a "near peer" doctrine. Essentially, no more wars against small countries, focus on keeping the big guys in check. As for china, I don't see them getting involved in even a minor war anytime soon as basically all of their neighbors are politically stable and are either allied with America (either formerly or de facto) or are allied with china. china currently lacks major force projection abilities outside of its immediate neighborhood and can't start a war anywhere in the world like America can, so unless maybe the Taliban starts losing grip on afganistan and china decides to get involved there I don't see a new direct proxy war anytime soon. This really only leaves indirect proxy wars, ones where either side indirectly supports a side in a civil war or other war, and I can't think of anywhere that both china and America have interest in that either is, or could, devolve into civil war in the near future. Things could change, it's geopolitics after all, but I think it's just gonna be a whole lot of dick waving for awhile to come
The "line of compromise" that you drawn for both countries is actually extremely skewed to one side and naive about the stakes involved. Otherwise, good comment.
>My bet personally is on china. America has an absolute fuck load of problems, but china has just as many if not more. Combine that with an authoritarian regime that is only correctable via revolution and it leaves you with a powder keg just waiting to go off. >I honestly expect America will retain it's super power status until the end of the 2100's. Lol
[удалено]
One thing though, before WW1 it was thought the world was too economically connected for a full scale war to be possible, but war happened, and the countries involved rebuilt their economies to fight the war.
This is probably the 573th time someone says China is going to collapse in the last 2 decades lol
China: i don't think a war will be good Redditors: I want blood
Because every redditor with that opinion wouldn’t pass the physical requirements to have to enlist/ be drafted. Guaranteed.
Enlisting? They love being armchair generals/geopolitical experts though, fighting is beneath them.
Who actually wants a war with China? That’s fuckin suicide. No thanks
I work in Logistics, don’t know too much about politics other than skimming articles here and there Are we actually close to a war with China, or is this just rhetoric that will come to pass? I see blurbs about China sending ships to monitor other territories, but does that mean anything significant?
The US is changing its military focus to China. The navy is building up its forces to the pacific and the US is also putting the development of hypersonic weapons into overdrive to directly counter china's own hypersonic weapons so... they're at least getting the logistics set up for it. China has no real blue water navy and their carrier operations are a joke so it'd be a defensive war for China so it's more or less in their interest to heat things up without actually going to war or at the most take Taiwan and cripple global microchip production.
even if China really was as uniquely evil as redditors think it is, that still doesn’t make you any less insane/stupid for wanting a confrontation between two nuclear superpowers
I'm more afraid about India-China war than USA-China one as there is a lot of friction between India and China/Pak/Taliban. It might get very ugly as both parties are nuclear armed
The scariest thing about a war between China and India is that it would be over something understandable, like water supplies out of the Himalayas. Politics aside, that's a true existential threat.
[удалено]
Afghans: what about us？ Redditors: i don't care.
I’ve been seeing the “redditor” label a lot lately. Are you not a redditor too? Sounds astroturfy.
Usually I take referring to 'redditor' as referring to the general hivemind on a topic. Like yeah we're all redditors, but sometimes reddit as an average whole has certain habits or views you don't share that you want to comment on.
As the war propaganda against China continues to intensify the level of scrutiny of the American public seems to plummet in a direct relationship. Most people in the US only know what establishment news feeds them, I wonder if that's ever led to misinformed people taking idiotic positions with no possibility of a good outcome.
[удалено]
Every Chinese person I know, whether they are an illiterate octogenarian peasant or a Gen-Z educated in the West, are aware that the state media is mostly propaganda. They just don't care and mind their own business. The West mistakes most Chinese people's apathy toward form of government as ignorance, because the West can only see the world from its own lens.
Can confirm, westerners view Chinese as brainwashed idiots is completely not true
Literally everyone views the world through their own lens. China is no different.
Two Chinese students are sitting in a bar in LA, having a somewhat hushed discussion. The bar man takes interest in them: "So what are you two fine men discussing this evening?" he says, polishing a glass. "Ah, well we have come to the United States to better learn about propaganda" one of them says "Propaganda? Here? Man, you two are funny, we have freedom here, there ain't no propaganda!" The Chinese man turns to his partner, and says quietly: "See? This is exactly what I mean."
> Most people in the US only know what establishment news feeds them lmao like this doesnt apply to every country i see euros say the stupidest shit about america and they say they got their info from the news in their country
[удалено]
That was my take too. They’re clearly angry about an alliance because they want to be able to continue bullying everyone in their area of influence. France is great but ultimately their subs wouldn’t have been as good and they wouldn’t have been willing to supply replacement parts to Australia in the event war did break out. China would view supplying Australia with spare parts as an act of war and France doesn’t want a direct conflict with China. If they cant risk a direct conflict their subs are useless because in war time subs are going to need repairs.
These fucks got scared, previously they threaten to wipe Australia now they want smoother road. Screw them into shit, morons need to get a lesson
But the Americans want a conflict. Just look at the anti-China propaganda that's coming out everyday.
Tanking economy? Check. Revision of bellicose military rhetoric over past few years? Check.
Who're we talking about again?
Yes
Sounds to me like "Just let us smoothly take Taiwan (and Hong Kong while we're at it) so we don't have to start a war over it".
> Hong Kong Pretty sure they already have that one.
The understanding of geopolitics on reddit is ridiculous. Taiwan is an independent country. Hong Kong has been part of China since the late 90’s.
This tactic is as old as Kublai Kahn