and we start to become the United States of Jesus Land...

[Starseeker]

Why not split the thread?

Or put it in the China/India thread?

This is turning out to be an interesting read.

As far as I know, only Welsh has been in China before.

Anyway, the situation is China right now is very amusing.

More than 50% of the young people I met(16-25) are under educated(they never graduated from junior high/high school). A lot of kids from country side with college lvl eduation are dumb as a brick. And many of them are yellow necks(as in red necks), meaning they don't know jack about anything but claim otherwise and believe that they can do no wrong. Therefore they believe most of the crap that's been fed to them on a tube and think they know how the world works.

The only people that would probably affect some kind of change are the kids with foreign education and return immigrants. The sea turtles, seeing the economical boom back home, bring back experties, experience, and a better understanding about how the world is.

Of course, trying to change a population of 1.2 billion people in just 2 decades is practically impossible.

Well, carry on, and split the thread?

 

[Roshambo]

Aside from the general derailing, I do have to debunk one final load of tripe that has to stand above the rest. Yes, Kharn, I know this has been derailing, and the lengthy replies haven't helped much, but apparently people didn't notice my earlier remarks about the same thing. So much for people reading the discussion.

Directed to Rosh (welsh sorta ninja stealth posted in between our arguments, heh)

You literally pull one quote out of the entire argument to address, and blithely ride roughshod over it with strawman attacks on my character.

You literally pull one element of the entire discussion to draw into a tangent and blithely ride roughshod over it in a classic display of idiocy.

I wasn't going to address the rest of your drivel because it was exactly that, irrelevant drivel. It, like many others, went into the realm of small shit that not only ignored the previous parts of the discussion, but also showed that some people expect the world to remain the same from now on. Sorry, that is either insanity, living under a rock, or the mark of someone who hasn't been around for too long. No, sorry, that is how CHILDREN think.

Yes, brilliant riposte to my arguments, seriously. You know, attacking someone's mother would be the same level of maturity.

Speaking of ironies and straw man arguments. For your information... fuck it, I'm not going to bother explaining what "cheechako" means.

First of all, I made no claim about Canada at ALL in the argument and, yes, I HAVE been to Alaska. I also have a fair understanding of politics, something you seem to completely disregard in this situation as you make up this sort of "dream match" mentality of the US against China involving merry ol' nukes.

I think I didn't quantify whether they were or were not using nukes, only threw it in as a possibility. Thank you for being courteous enough to read the discussion before coming up with that bullshit reply. And the steaming pile I just replied to, as well.

Just because our military is at a low point NOW (with problems trying to act as hegemon for the world) does NOT mean the United States couldn't ratchet up its own forces, similar to what occured during World War II.

You also forget the point that I made about the US having allies in WWII, which is naturally, what would be required to wage an effort on any major front in the modern world. Yet the US is having difficulties with a piece of desert, and yet they are supposedly the bestest.

Again, thank you for reading the discussion where I (and others) also mention that China would possibly have their own allies, yet it seems like you're doing Teh Order thing and butting in zergling style without really reading the thread beforehand. I have a suspicion this might also be treated in similar "tl;dr" fashion.

(Snip a load of tangents and irrelevant shit- if only the discussion were read.)

Listen, weaselnuts, the entire point of illustrating this was to see exactly how defensive you can be over your ignorance over Alaska. No, it is not just a pipeline, thank you very much. That is a cheechakoes point of view, and if that term offends you, just remember that argumentative ignorance offends me. You presented yourself as very ignorant of Alaska if you think "[China] does not have the supply capacity for rearming any of its troops, assuming it did invade through Alaska, though we would probably lose the oil pipeline. " There goes one of their problems already, which would be the entire reason for invading through that route; it not only cuts off a substantial portion of domestically-produced oil for the US, but puts it into their hands.

The entire point of using China in such a context, regardless of the REAL ignorance about socio-political issues around here*, was to debunk some incorrect assertions about the power and ability of certain militaries. In particular, about where real conquest is founded, and how that is exactly where the US is relatively weak at. Or did you miss that part as well in your hurry to post into the thread?

* - The real fact of socio-political profiles in the world is that they are not constant, they are always changing.

I am not trying to play Nostradamus here, so stop trying to apply everything I say in a literal "how it would happen today" sense. Shit, at least I can cite historic examples of the same strategy, yet the kids are wanting to pull "economy" out of their asses as if it's a get out of jail free card against war.

Socio-political constants, are by any measure, an oxymoron. The world is not what it was 50 years ago, and neither is the US what it was 50 years ago. This hold especially true for Europe and the Middle East. Imagine what would happen if more Mid-East countries got into a conflict with the US, and China decides that in exchange for oil and help with logistics, they can help with troops. Or Russia does something of the same bid, with Chinese troops backing. Oil for military aid...amusingly enough, not a new concept. Now throw in someone who can provide in food, and you have a happy new Axis power. When past prejudices are put aside in light of what is needed, then even the most unlikely of alliances can be forged.

I don't bury my head into the sand, to believe that everything will be the same tomorrow as it is today. If you had told me 20 years ago that I would be talking to a Russian radar/comms engineer like old friend, then I would have called you absolutely nuts, yet it has happened. Take a look at how the world has changed, and not just in history books or what you watch on TV.

Right now, I see a lot of assumptions against such a scenario. One, that the economy would still matter to the Chinese govt. if their current situations persist and grow worse. Do you think the Nazi Party had much concern for their own economy when they were instead pillaging supplies from others? No, that is not someone's cue to talk about Nazi logistics or how many treads their tanks had on them. Economy is also a reason for going to war, but it has really been a reason to stop anyone if they were given a viable route otherwise to go to war. Save further discussions about the economy for accounting classes, please, kids.

Two is the current alliances keeping other forces in check. Russia - enemy, ally, enemy, friend, who the hell knows for certain about now and tomorrow?

Think a few moves in advance. White and black may seem the same, but the players are different. Assuming that things will stay the same in politics is quite foolish. I'm sorry...I just have to look at other cases of nationalistic pride + overpopulation.

Attack the issues at least. If you want to rip into an argument, at least answer all of my points, not just one with "Oh, CNN shows oil in Alaska and you assume this...". Don't assume so much about a person being *gasp* ignorant merely because I cant spend hours formulating a case by case basis to answer your argument.

So then would you like to illustrate why I should respect anything from you, if you don't have the time to be bothered to fully read the thread, and come up with an apropos reply?

Finally, no offense to you either. I mean, obviously I think you are funny and witty and such, but give some courtesy when debating.

This, coming from the person that didn't bother to read the discussion before they just interjected the text equivalent of XXX booth wall coverings.

Don't bother trying to rebuke me again if you're going to lie about it, especially if you're going to make accusations of "strawman attacks on my character" [sic].

I'm not some flamer or troll or anything else along those lines.

Of course you're not, because you say so.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Actually, the original article is about the Constitutional Restoration Act. You got baited as before into an argument over the military with John, reply with "Go-Go Gadget Eggshell Armor" and thus, the topic is derailed. Now the topic seems to be about military capabilities with China, which has little to do with the original thread.

So, fine, I derailed the argument a bit, but only after a few choice one-liners are thrown about by you and others to originally derail it from politics into "my army is the bestest/worstest". Cry me a river Rosh about your derailing and selective reading as well.

 

[John Uskglass]

Vaugley related article.

Anyone have any referances on the possibility of a Chinese attack on the American mainland through Alaska? Everything I see says it's almost impossible.

A bloody revolt in a tiny village challenges the rulers of China

Protesters angry at corruption and poverty repelled 1,000 riot police. But now fear is replacing euphoria in Huankantou

Jonathan Watts in Huankantou
Friday April 15, 2005
The Guardian

There is a strange new sightseeing attraction in this normally sleepy corner of the Chinese countryside: smashed police cars, rows of trashed buses and dented riot helmets.
They are the trophies of a battle in which peasants scored a rare and bloody victory against the communist authorities, who face one of the most serious popular challenges to their rule in recent years.

In driving off more than 1,000 riot police at the start of the week, Huankantou village in Zhejiang province is at the crest of a wave of anarchy that has seen millions of impoverished farmers block roads and launch protests against official corruption, environmental destruction and the growing gap between urban wealth and rural poverty.

China's media have been forbidden to report on the government's loss of control, but word is spreading quickly to nearby towns and cities. Tens of thousands of sightseers and wellwishers are flocking every day to see the village that beat the police.
But the consequences for Huankantou are far from clear.

Having put more than 30 police in hospital, five critically, the 10,000 residents should be bracing for a backlash. Instead, the mood is euphoric. Children have not been to school since Sunday's clash. There are roadblocks outside the chemical factory that was the origin of the dispute. Late at night the streets are full of gawping tourists, marshalled around the battleground by proud locals who bellow chaotic instructions through loudspeakers.

"Aren't these villagers brave? They are so tough it's unbelievable," said a taxi driver from Yiwu, the nearest city. "Everybody wants to come and see this place. We really admire them."

"We came to take a look because many people have heard of the riot," said a fashionably dressed young woman who had come from Yiwu with friends. "This is really big news."

Although the aftermath is evident in a school car park full of smashed police buses, burned out cars and streets full of broken bricks and discarded sticks, the origin of the riot is hazy.

Initial reports suggested that it started after the death of two elderly women, who were run over when police attempted to clear their protest against a chemical factory in a nearby industrial park.

Witnesses confirmed that the local old people's association had kept a 24-hour vigil for two weeks outside the plant. Many said they had heard of the deaths, but no one could name the victims. The local government of Dongyang insists there were no fatalities.

Like many of the other disputes that have racked China in the past year, frustration had been simmering for some time. Locals accused officials of seizing the land for the industrial park - built in 2002 - without their consent. Some blamed toxins from the chemical plant for ruined crops, malformed babies and contamination of the local Huashui river.

The village chief reportedly refused to hold a public meeting to hear these grievances. Attempts to petition the central government also proved fruitless. Locals said they had lost faith in the authorities.

"The communists are even worse than the Japanese," said one man.

Memories are still fresh of the fighting on Sunday. "It was about 4am and I was woken up by an unusual noise," said a Ms Wang, a shopkeeper who lives next to the school where the fiercest fighting took place. "When I looked out of the window, I saw lots of riot police running into the village. Many men rushed out of their houses to defend our village."

Accounts of the conflict differ. Residents say 3,000 police stormed the village, several people - including police - were killed, dozens wounded and 30 police buses destroyed. But the Dongyang government says about 1,000 police and local officials were attacked by a mob, which led to 36 injuries and no deaths.

The outcome is also unclear. Locals say the village chief has fled. In his place, they have established an organising committee, though its members are a secret. This suggests a fear of recriminations, but the public mood is one of bravado.

"We don't feel regret about what we have done," said a middle-aged man. "The police have not come back since they withdrew on Monday. They dare not return."

Some, however, admitted to anxiety. Among them was an old woman - also a Mrs Wang - who reluctantly opened her doors to visitors who had come to see her collection of trophies from the battle.

"I am scared," she said, as she showed two dented riot police helmets, several empty gas canisters, a policeman's jacket and several truncheons and machetes. "This is getting bigger and bigger."

But there have been no arrests and no communication from the authorities. The current leadership will be keen to avoid a Tiananmen Square-style confrontation, including prime minister Wen Jiabao, who pleaded with the Tianan men protesters to leave before the tanks came. At the same time, the authorities are committed to social stability.

According to government statistics, protests increased by 15% last year to 58,000, with more than 3 million people taking part. In many provincial capitals, roadblocks occur more than once a week. Last weekend, anti-Japanese demonstrators rallied in three cities, including Beijing.

But in Huankantou, villagers do not seem to realise that although they have won the battle, they may be far from winning the war.

Amid a crowd of locals beside a wrecked bus, one middle-aged woman won a cheer of approval by calling for the government to make the first move towards reconciliation.

"It's up to them to start talking," she said. "I don't know what we would do if the police came back again, but our demand is to make the factory move out of the village. We will not compromise on that."

 

[Big T]

Anyone have any referances on the possibility of a Chinese attack on the American mainland through Alaska? Everything I see says it's almost impossible.

May I ask the source of these statements. Or, more specifically, their nationality?
I feel that may colour (color) the intent of the statements.

(Big T, butting into an argument he has little/no knowledge of.)

 

[John Uskglass]

I've heard from Americans, Canadians and Europeans today; all of them agree that Alaska being invaded by the Chinese is about as likely as China sending a spaceship to Mars with a sling shot.

The Bearing Sea would be a lot more difficult to cross then the English Channel, and the USAF and USN are in better shape then the RAF or RN where at the time of the Battle of Britan.

I also think the Aleutians are extremley unlikely in any event; The PLAN would never be able to ship enough soldiers Okinawa style with the USN patrolling those waters.

It's Turtledove-esque fantasy.

 

[Brother None]

Americans, Canadians and Europeans, huh? Let's see, there'd be a coupled of hundred million of those, you might want to try being more specific

 

[John Uskglass]

Americans, Canadians and Europeans, huh? Let's see, there'd be a coupled of hundred million of those, you might want to try being more specific

Two Conservative Americans with military expiriance, one who works for the US Government, one Liberal American (from whom I stole the 'sling shot' jab), a Frenchman and one of my teachers today.

Frankly Kharn, I think you have been playing too much Risk.

 

[Big T]

The Bearing Sea would be a lot more difficult to cross then the English Channel, and the USAF and USN are in better shape then the RAF or RN where at the time of the Battle of Britan.

What? As if that's anything to do with it. I think the current Chinese Navy and/or Air Force (Particularly if made a priority by the Chinese leadership) is in better shape than the Luftwaffe in the middle of a total war.

Completely irrelevant.

You might as well talk of how the Fellowship repelled the Nazgul, for all the similarity it has.

Seriously, I think you need to learn to separate history from the present.

Not every situation has an exact historical analogue.

EDIT -

Frankly Kharn, I think you have been playing too much Risk.

Quoted for posterity. I feel the exact same statement applies to somebody else here.

 

[John Uskglass]

I think the current Chinese Navy and/or Air Force (Particularly if made a priority by the Chinese leadership) is in better shape than the Luftwaffe in the middle of a total war.

Bullshit. The PLAAF cannot hope to compete with the training, the real life expiriance, and is hopelessly behind us in terms of technology. It's like replacing the Luftwaffe with the Turkish Air Force in the middle of the Battle of Britan.

Not every situation has an exact historical analogue.

You are largely right here. There is no example of a nation with an advantage only in raw men on the ground (not in terms of naval power, air power, technology or real life expiriance) winning
A) An air battle
B) A naval battle
C) Victory on a beachead that is easy to defend
and go on to
D) Invade a massive area the size of the East Coast and almost no population with SERIOUS logistical issues and a hostile native populace that knows the rough terrain.

That's beyond unheard of; it's fantastic.

Quoted for posterity. I feel the exact same statement applies to somebody else here.

You already admitted you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Brother None]

Two Conservative Americans with military expiriance, one who works for the US Government, one Liberal American (from whom I stole the 'sling shot' jab), a Frenchman and one of my teachers today.

Frankly Kharn, I think you have been playing too much Risk.

Not really. You see just because a "specialist" says something it does not make it necessarily so. I would like to see some arguments rather than just know the validity of your sources or did you not bother to have them support their opinions once you knew they coincided with yours?

Also, the issue of Russia siding with China has already been brought up, which changes the entire situation.

Besides which, you still haven't retracted the ass-retarted statement that the US military is as strong as that of the rest of the world combined. Maybe you should, by now?

 

[John Uskglass]

You see just because a "specialist" says something it does not make it necessarily so. I would like to see some arguments rather than just know the validity of your sources or did you not bother to have them support their opinions once you knew they coincided with yours?

I am right now. Look above you.

Also, the issue of Russia siding with China has already been brought up, which changes the entire situation.

And, as previous posters have pointed out, it's impossible.

Besides which, you still haven't retracted the ass-retarted statement that the US military is as strong as that of the rest of the world combined. Maybe you should, by now?

What I meant was that a real invasion of the continental US is flat out impossible, and any realistic alliance would could not bring us down WWII style. We could hypothetically loose a war I suppose, if our economy continues to go down for several decades and some big alliance comes along. But the natural position of the United States is such that, unless this Superpower is Canada or Mexico, I don't see a traditional victory.

I like you Kharn, but if you really think that a Swiss Guard could knock out a US Marine with years of combat expiriance, and that the PRC could really invade the US under any realistic circumstances, then facts are of no utility at that point; they have the same effect as would trying to teach first graders to read by using Kant's Critique of Pure Reason as the class text.

 

[Big T]

Bullshit. The PLAAF cannot hope to compete with the training, the real life expiriance, and is hopelessly behind us in terms of technology.

What? We are talking about a theoretical war occurring an unspecified number of years from now. What basis have you to say that a country with many times the resources of yours cannot possibly compete with your airforce? i am not saying the necesarily could, only that they have the potential to. Yes, China is behind you on technology now. How do you know what the situation will be in five, ten, fifteen years time?

It's like replacing the Luftwaffe with the Turkish Air Force in the middle of the Battle of Britan.

Not really. Unless Turkey was five times larger than Britain (I'm talking population-wise here) and there was little foreign knowledge of their internal politics or military capabilities. You're looking for analogues again CCR.

Not every situation has an exact historical analogue.

You are largely right here. There is no example of a nation with an advantage only in raw men on the ground (not in terms of naval power, air power, technology or expiriance) winning
A) An air battle
B) A naval battle
C) Victory on a beachead that is easy to defend
and go on to
D) Invade a massive area the size of the East Coast and almost no population with SERIOUS logistical issues and a hostile native populace that knows the rough terrain.

I believe Rosh has already countered A, B and C (with respect to the current debate), but thanks for trying. As for D, there is a "native" poulation (I am assuming you mean the recent native local poulation (Americans) not the previous native local poulation) but they are fairly sparse and would face much of the same logistical problems as the opposition. Only there are less of them to go around, so losing a few to hypothermia, starvation and/or fighting would matter more.

Quoted for posterity. I feel the exact same statement applies to somebody else here.

You already admitted you have no idea what you ar talking about.

Indeed, but my lack of knowledge does not, in any way, bolster your own. If you truly believe it does, then you are a bigger fool than I had previously taken you for.

At least I am truthful about my knowledge. I am just guessing, alike to many of the amaeur military strategists here, but at least I know I am guessing.

 

[John Uskglass]

What? We are talking about a theoretical war occurring an unspecified number of years from now. What basis have you to say that a country with many times the resources of yours cannot possibly compete with your airforce? i am not saying the necesarily could, only that they have the potential to. Yes, China is behind you on technology now. How do you know what the situation will be in five, ten, fifteen years time?

Then you have no idea how long it takes to modernize an airforce. The F22 and the F35 will be the staples of the USAF in fifteen years while the PLAAF is still flirting with the J-9, a VASTLY INFERIOR aircraft.

In twenty to twenty five years I can make no predictions other then our populations will become close to the same while China's implodes and ours continues to explode.

Not really. Unless Turkey was five times larger than Britain (I'm talking population-wise here) and there was little foreign knowledge of their internal politics or military capabilities. You're looking for analogues again CCR.

In twenty five years they will have few such advantages in terms of population, and they have no such advantages now in terms of economics and military technology.

The future appears to even out.

. As for D, there is a "native" poulation (I am assuming you mean the recent native local poulation (Americans) not the previous native local poulation) but they are fairly sparse and would face much of the same logistical problems as the opposition. Only there are less of them to go around, so losing a few to hypothermia, starvation and/or fighting would matter more.

Little native population, thus Rosh's above comment about Logistics being unnesicary as the PLA scavanges it's way for food is beyond defence. Moose Bacon is good, but it can't feed 3 million Red Chinese soldiers.

At least I am truthful about my knowledge. I am just guessing, alike to many of the amaeur military strategists here, but at least I know I am guessing.

I admit to not being a prohpet, yet am honest with my demographics. I admit to not having Rosh's military expiriance, but have the counsel of those who do.

 

[Big T]

The F22 and the F35 will be the staples of the USAF in fifteen years while the PLAAF is still flirting with the J-9, a VASTLY INFERIOR aircraft...

In twenty to twenty five years I can make no predictions other then our populations will become close to the same while China's implodes and ours continues to explode...

In twenty five years they will have few such advantages in terms of population, and they have no such advantages now in terms of economics and military technology...

The future appears to even out.

Ah, your Crystal Ball is working much better than mine. I think mine must be fogged up, or perhaps cracked.

What basis do you have for these statements?
If you really can see into the future I would appreciate next week's Lottery numbers.
Kthx.

At least I am truthful about my knowledge. I am just guessing, alike to many of the amaeur military strategists here, but at least I know I am guessing.

I admit to not being a prohpet, yet am honest with my demographics. I admit to not having Rosh's military expiriance, but have the counsel of those who do.

Yet you have given little evidence of these connections. What you have given is equivalent to shouting
"MY Dad told me and he knows EVERYTHING!"

Whilst I am sure that your Dad must be a five-Star general, I doubt that he has passed on all his knowledge.

Aside from that, you have given the opinions of five people. I am wondering what validity that really gives you.

 

[John Uskglass]

Ah, your Crystal Ball is working much better than mine. I think mine must be fogged up, or perhaps cracked. Rolling Eyes

Read something on the subject. It might not relpace a 'crystal ball', but it helps you not come off as totally uninformed.

What basis do you have for these statements?

0-14 years: 22.3% (male 153,401,051; female 135,812,993)
15-64 years: 70.3% (male 469,328,664; female 443,248,860)
65 years and over: 7.5% (male 46,308,923; female 50,747,133) (2004 est.)

at birth: 1.12 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.13 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.91 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2004 est.)

1.69 children born/woman (2004 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Notice the fertility rate. Also notice a bizzare lack of young women. All signs point towards massive population decline.

0.92% (2004 est.) Population Growth

3.41 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2004 est.)

at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.71 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2004 est.)


2.07 children born/woman (2004 est.)

On the other side, all signs point towards population boom.

Yet you have given little evidence of these connections. What you have given is equivalent to shouting
"MY Dad told me and he knows EVERYTHING!"

I have yet to see any proffesional opinion that such an invasion is possible. The ball is in your court; YOU are trying to prove that such an unlikely invasion is POSSIBLE.

Whilst I am sure that your Dad must be a five-Star general, I doubt that he has passed on all his knowledge.

My father knows nothing of such matters, thank you very much.

Aside from that, you have given the opinions of five people. I am wondering what validity that really gives you.

Better that then you basing your judgements on a total lack of information other then 'Uskglass is usually wrong' and 'DEATH TO AMERICA'.

 

[Big T]

...Notice the fertility rate. Also notice a bizzare lack of young women. All signs point towards massive population decline.

Yes, but, correct me if I am wrong, the Chinese have a Government target on birth rate. This would likely be scrapped if they were ramping up to a global war.

2.07 children born/woman (2004 est.)

On the other side, all signs point towards population boom.

I'm not sure that 2.07 children/woman is a boom, but whatever.

You are still assuming that currnet trends will continue. Have the US and Chinese birthrates been stable for the last 15-20 years? I don't believe they have.
Why should I believe they will be, in a changing political climate, for the next 15-20?

Our armed forces are still as powerful as the rest of the world's combined.

I have yet to see any proffesional opinion that such an invasion is possible. The ball is in your court; YOU are trying to prove that such an unlikely invasion is POSSIBLE.

Um ... why is it that you feel the ball is in my (our?) court?
You made this fatuous statement, why should I(we) have to discredit it when you have consistently failed to prove it?

Whilst I am sure that your Dad must be a five-Star general, I doubt that he has passed on all his knowledge.

My father knows nothing of such matters, thank you very much.

Right, the "MY DAD"statement was never a serious ploy, so I'm not going to make a proper response to this.

Aside from that, you have given the opinions of five people. I am wondering what validity that really gives you.

Better that then you basing your judgements on a total lack of information other then 'Uskglass is usually wrong' and 'DEATH TO AMERICA'.

I don't believe I have ever argued a point from the position of "DEATH TO AMERICA", it is a rather flimsy straw man argument to suggest that I have. To link me to a political viewpoint that hates your country just because I disagree with your (personal) viewpoint is rather bizarre.

That said, "Uskglass" is usaually wrong.

 

[John Uskglass]

Yes, but, correct me if I am wrong, the Chinese have a Government target on birth rate. This would likely be scrapped if they were ramping up to a global war.

If they had 20 years to prepare the birth rate for one, maybe. Or maybe they could have a time machine, that would be cool.

I'm not sure that 2.07 children/woman is a boom, but whatever.

2.07 + Loads of Immigrants=Boom in this day and age.

You are still assuming that currnet trends will continue. Have the US and Chinese birthrates been stable for the last 15-20 years? I don't believe they have.
Why should I believe they will be, in a changing political climate, for the next 15-20?

It takes a lot for birth rates to change. A LOT. It's taken 40 years for Mao's One-Child policy to take effect, it would take a lot more to suddenly reverse that.

And as I have stated, this is more then a long term of 15-20 years, as no birth rate is suddenly going to go through the roof in a month.

Um ... why is it that you feel the ball is in my (our?) court?
You made this fatuous statement, why should I(we) have to discredit it when you have consistently failed to prove it?

Because I cannot prove a negative. You must prove a positive. You must prove that it is possible according to a credible source outside this forum that an invasion into Alaska by the PRC is remotley possible at any point during the future.

I don't believe I have ever argued a point from the position of "DEATH TO AMERICA", it is a rather flimsy straw man argument to suggest that I have. To link me to a political viewpoint that hates your country just because I disagree with your (personal) viewpoint is rather bizarre.

It's our way here.

That said, "Uskglass" is usaually wrong.

Told yeh.

 

[Big T]

Um ... why is it that you feel the ball is in my (our?) court?
You made this fatuous statement, why should I(we) have to discredit it when you have consistently failed to prove it?

Because I cannot prove a negative. You must prove a positive. You must prove that it is possible according to a credible source outside this forum that an invasion into Alaska by the PRC is remotley possible at any point during the future.

Insofar as it can be proved, your plan has as much viability as "our's" does.

Your charge is to prove it can be defended, not that it cannot be defeated. Whilst this is the same thing, if it's phrased as defending then you are proving a positive.

If we want to play semantics, the you have to prove it can be defended, whilst "we" have to prove it can't.

Exactly the same deal, just different words.

 

[John Uskglass]

No, it has not as much validity. Everyone has admited Alaska and the Aleutians are easy to defend. No one has pointed out a way to beat that, or any outside document or study proving that it can be so easily broken.