07-07-2017, 11:33 AM
(07-06-2017, 11:48 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Trumps speech is more to do with the Islamist threat rather than
> toward threats from North Korea, China and Russia. Especially
> Regarding Chinese and North Korean threats to the west. Here I
> mention Europe. If China actually was a threat to Europe, Putin's
> Russia would have a much different attitude toward China than it
> does. Russia would not have a De Facto alliance with China if they
> posed a threat to Europe because Russia shares a direct border
> with China, Europe does not. North Korea doesn't border Europe and
> there are no European troops oppose them. We have troops opposite
> them and are committed to south Korea and Japan. For that reason a
> North Korean threat to the US is plausible, regarding Europe
> However there is no such hostile relation in regards to Europe and
> the North Koreans have no border with Europe, so there is no
> plausible trigger point for an attack on Europe.
> Regardless of the Level of threat China can pose to Russia, The
> US, and Europe; China would always be a greater threat to Russia
> than it would be to Europe. This is due to simple Geography, China
> actually borders Russia, it does not border Europe. For that
> reason a Chinese war with Russia or a Chinese war with the US are
> plausible scenarios, China invading Europe on the other hand is
> not a plausible scenario unless Russia has already been conquered
> beforehand.
> Regarding North Korea it is likely that this threat would not be
> the case. Not Because North Korea is not developing missiles
> capable of hitting the US, it is and that nation is becoming more
> dangerous by the day. But precisely because the obvious threat it
> poses to the US would necessitate the imminent use of the Nuclear
> scalpel to remove this threat. This would also bolster deterrence
> crucially with both Russia and China.
Apparently you're not fully up to date on the news. Russia
and China are conducting joint naval military exercises in
the Baltic Sea.
https://news.usni.org/2017/07/05/china-r...n-maritime
(07-07-2017, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Yes. It's in the US interest to preserve NATO, but the EU, which
> has become a tool for European protectionism rather than for free
> trade, works against US interests. A breakup of the EU would help
> facilitate a period of American domination after the
> crisis.
There's no way that I'm aware of to reach those conclusions from that
assumption. At any rate, it's a moot point, since the EU will not
survive the war in its present form. After the war, there will be a
big international conference, where international boundaries will be
redrawn, losers will be condemned, and winners will be write the
history of what happened. At that time, the EU will be reconstituted
in some way to take advantage of "lessons learned" from the war.
(07-07-2017, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Or, perhaps, the danger is from Russia rather than - or in
> addition to - China, and you're also being oblivious to it. Based
> on Trump's speech, he's not.
> It's also to be noted that Churchill couldn't actually have done
> much more than Chamberlain, since the UK hadn't really rearmed at
> the time of the Sudeten crisis. We may be facing a similar issue
> with North Korea - which incidentally is currently on better terms
> with Russia than with China.
Apparently you aren't up to date with the latest news.
Trump did criticize Russia by saying, "We urge Russia to cease its
destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for
hostile regimes -- including Syria and Iran." But also, Trump and
Putin are giving the appearance of being very friendly -- though that
could change, as they're still meeting.
On the other hand, relations between Trump and Xi have been changing
dramatically, since their friendly meeting in Florida. In just the
last week, the administration has imposed sanctions on a Chinese bank
for helping NK, has sold arms to Taiwan, has met with Modi, has
criticized China's human trafficking, and has conducted freedom of
navigation operation in the South China Sea.
So I would say that Trump's relations with Xi are far more hostile
than his relations with Putin.
--
I analyze events in a way completely different from the way that both
of you do. What you've been doing is similar to looking at the
weather reports for the last six months, extrapolating them forward,
and concluding that by December the temperature in NY city will be 150
degrees.
The whole point of generational theory is that you can't do that
extrapolation. As I've explained on my web site, you can apply System
Dynamics, as developed by MIT's Jay Forrester, applying it to
generational flows.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, everything going on
today between Russia and China is a collection of fatuous political
moves based on their common "criminal" activities, invading and
annexing regions belonging to other countries, and not nearly as
important as the flow of history between the two countries. The
political relationships can change overnight, but the historical
relations are core attitudes buried deep within the generations.
As you say, China borders Russia, and a war with China would endanger
Russia more than the US. I agree, though those Chinese missiles are
specifically designed to be as destructive as possible to the US.
However, those missiles are also a danger to Europe, so no one is
safe.
