OH MAH LAWDZ.

Conspiracy!

Ha. Seriously. FBI is probably watching the house right now.

*glances around suspiciously*

Yeah, probably.

Bringing shame to our family... juuuuust like Tuntu...  

Eie!Eie!Eie!

I actually work hard!

Eie?

What are you now? A donkey?

Eie, like Canadians say it.

But you're not Canadian.
As far as I know.

Yeah, but I can still say it!

OH GOD IT'S THE RAPTURE!!!


  You know how china invaded Korea, well when you mention something about china you are practically  including Korea too. If we go to war with china, which with what is going on now we will we will have all of the oriental countries up our ass. I have been talking to my mom about that, and we agreed we would leave the country as soon as possible.

Ummm...this might be the start of WWIII.

I know, and I am not getting nuked by china!

There isn't much of a safer place than in the US--except Maaaybe Canada... but it kinda blows up there.

How so?

MAD=Mutually Assured Destruction.  It makes all the bad boys play nice.  No one wants to destroy the world--rule the world, yes.  Destroy it?  No.  China does not benefit by nuking us... because before the nukes fall on us, ours are already in the air to destroy them.  (not to mention everyone else with nukes allied to each nation blows the smithereens out of eachother in response.)  It's what prevented the end of the world during the Cold War.  Nuclear weapons are only good when the guy you're using them on doesn't have them--or if you're a terrorist.  Note: the only time nukes were used was WWII--and they ended the war. 

"No.  China does not benefit by nuking us... because before the nukes fall on us, ours are already in the air to destroy them" what facts do you have backing that up? We couldn't have stopped pearl harbor could we? Japan couldn't stop us nuking them could they? What makes you so sure that China couldn't snap on us just as quick as other nations have other nations? As a matter of fact I don't know if you heard of or remember this but You remember when china launched a satilite that we later decided we would fly up around have it tag along and do the same thing? Well china didn't play so nice they are way ahead of us.

Okay, there are stations--satellite and radar that detect for things like ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missles).  Ever seen the movie "War Games?"  No one can jump a nuclear strike with missles or bombers without being able to respond.  The only way an nuke would go off without warning is a terrorist-type strike.

Also with the technology China has as a growing nation they could hack into satellites from around the world with 10 minutes. Also you keep saying stuff about how the geography isn't right and how unrealistic stuff is but yet you mention a movie to back stuff up?

I mention a movie to illustrate roughly how something looks like.  And attacking my geography points with that is a "red herring" fallacy.  China can't hack every satellite in 10 minutes.  Where are you getting such false information?  Besides, even without satellites, nothing comes in our airspace without us knowing about it--except maybe UFOs (whatever they may be).  Also, radar towers, spy-radar planes, etc. etc. are set up in other nations as well--those who are friendly to us ofcourse.  We'd know about it if they sent something at us.  Besides, do you realize how difficult it is to get a missle all the way to the US?  If North Korea had a good one, they'd only get as far as California (a scenario desribed when N. Korea was trying to get WMDs.) 

You don't believe in the possibility of a nuclear weapon being disguised as a shuttle or even going into outer space?

Ahh now that is a thought I could entertain.  But do recognize that one nuclear weapon could at most destroy a major city.  If a nuke from space hit us, the list of perpetrators would be very small.  MAD would still be possible as our ICBM silos exist all over the world and are not concentrated in any one place (none of which are heavily populated either).

Even so, right now we're doing what we can to keep weapons out of space because of the sensitive nature of it all.  But that concern of yours is, I think, valid--BUT it is still at very least a long ways off as that technology hasn't been perfected yet--nor is it acceptable as far as international law (or at least it's not acceptable as far as international politics). 

Used in a war you mean.

Well used on another sovereign nation for the purpose of destruction--yes.  There have been tests a-plenty... but they don't really count.

Canada rules..... we're going to get nuked I know it....We don't have any allies. 

Read my above response about getting nuked.

 

And we have PLENTY of allies.  Not all of them are particularly pleased with us at the moment... but that doesn't mean that anyone will bully us around.  Look at the NATO nations--they are contractually allied with us.  Israel and us are great pals as well (the US has a higher Jewish population than Israel does!  And many of the Jews in Israel are American!)  Let's not even bother counting all the nations we give aid to.  Latin America, Far Eastern, African, etc.

Quick question when the hell has isreal won a war?

Holy crap man... learn some history!  Israel beat the hell out of Jordan, Egypt, and (I think) it was Syria back in the 60's--at the same time!  Go read up on Israel's military history (modern--we're not discussing Biblical stuff).

I don't trust the bible man. Also you are talking to a guy in 7th grade who I would say knows more about history than a lot of people in adult hood.

I didn't state anything from the Bible.  But even so, even if you don't accept its teachings as I do, it is still a worthy and ANCIENT historical document (if however bias--but isn't all history?)

Anyway, read up on modern Israel's military history--it's worth it!  The IDF is something to be admired.  Besides, did you know that every Israeli must serve in the military for a short period?  And after their active service they move down to inactive, then to active reserve, then inactive reserve, etc.  So if you're sitting in a pizza joint--you'd be one of the very few people there who hasn't been through military training.

Yes I had to do a project on Isreal. Women are required to do two years of service, and men four. I would also like to add I do not like pizza. Where or why did you bring up pizza?

Because I like pizza, and it's a popular analogy for whatever reason. 

Pizza FTW

The West has had close ties with India since:  East India Trading Company.  Also, we've been trying to broker a peace between India and Pakistan (another ally) for quite a while.  India and China are not (unless I'm mistaken) the best of friends.  China is not the best of friends with us either.  But, we are not so careless to go about making war against China.  And India is not so dumb as to provoke China by amassing troops on their borders beyond respectable levels... and certainly not with any sort of American troops.  Picking a fight with China would do one of three things--end very quickly and create Cold War II--start World War III end of civilization as we know it--Be another great war boosting China's economy like WWII did for the US.  (There are more options, but I'm glossing over a lot.)

1. The East India Trading Company isn't exactly what I would call a "close tie." If by "close ties" you meant sucking it dry and exploiting it's resources, then yes. Only in last 40 years has India been viewed as something worthwhile besides a cash cow for resources.

2. China is becoming an economic giant. The US needs a similar country as an ally. That's India.

3. India wasn't the one who I said was amassing troops, we are. We could actually send troops to China's border much more quickly from the Middle East than from all the way over from the Pacific Ocean.

4. Why would we trade nuclear technology for mangoes unless we're getting something more in return?

5. Did I say that fighting a war with China was a good/wise thing?

Preparing for the Chinese aggression is different than provoking a war with China.  And believe me, India wouldn't allow us to amass troops on their borders without amassing some of their own... they have no love loss with China either.  Besides, we don't have enough troops to spare for that business.  We're tied up in Iraq.  Can't bother with the other right now.

Oh, and it's according to the Iranian's word that the British soldiers crossed their border--I heard from someone that they're looking to prosecute them as spies.  I believe that is a death-penalty offense.  Iran is REALLY pushing it.

Um...who said that it would be India's border that would hold our troops? I was referring to Afghanistan.

And the death penalty thing...that is pushing it.

I'd have to look at a map.  But Afghanistan is not strategically positioned to attack China.  (I'd have to double check) but I know Afghanistan is positioned west of China... western China is not where any of the industry, or anything truly of military value is.  All the major parts are in the east.  West is rural and mountainous.  Not exactly perfect for troop movement.

 

And on the death penalty thing--are you agreeing with me or saying that I'm pushing it?

Yes, I'm agreeing with you on the death penalty thing.

Anyway, Afghanistan is the best option for the US. The Hymaliain Mountains are like a  northern wall for India, so it's not so good. The whole western is rural thing is actually a good thing. The mountains can be avoided, and plus the ground would be flat, so moving troops by jeeps wouldn't be a problem.

Also, at the same time troops would be moving through western China, the US will be sending it's troops on a long journey through the Pacific. The troops in Asia will be the first wave/diversion (the first strike can be a decisive one). China will need to fight on 2 fronts, weakening it's strength. True, we are attacking also on two sides, but our main front will be an attack on the eastern side. China would probably know this, but it can take any chances, especially since India might pull something also.

Moreover, just because there's no industry in the western area of China doesn't mean that it wouldn't be helpful to take it. Bases can be set up on conquered land to harbor more troops from anyone else that would want to help (although unlikely, most of Europe hates us).

"Rural" does not mean flat.  Rural China is anything but flat.  All the flat land is urban.  Urban=Cities, Rural=Country.

 

Your battle plan would work only in a video game or a board game like RISK.

 

US bases of operation would stand as follows: South Korea (where most of the ground fighting would take place going through North Korea).  Japan, the Phillipines and Taiwan.  (Possibly India and Pakistan--but only for airforce bases) That is the Asian front.  Afghanistan MIGHT send planes over... but doubtful.  It's a long way from Afghanistan to the parts of China worth bombing.  They would launch from the sea.  We would NOT if we had any option face China on the ground.  They outnumber us more than 100 to 1 if I'm not mistaken--and can outnumber us 1000 to 1 if they started drafting men.  We would NEVER invade China to take it.  It's an impossibility for an army as small as ours to do so to a nation as large and as populated as China (even with help from European nations--but they don't want to fight China--and frankily neither do we.)

Also you know that china pretty much still owns Korea right? The Vietcong's wouldn't let us use there soil Also might I add that with what you said about where the ground fighting would take place and the phillipines etc That is kinda more of a board game sounding thing the war would most likely be held near the middle east because of what is going on now. The odds of the government withdrawing the troops won't happen until bush goes out of office he is in denial about the war right now. As a matter of fact we are sitting ducks right now. Asia would not allow us to use that much land for battle we would have all of Eurasia on us.  

China does not own South Korea.  South Korea is one of our most loyal allies.  China doesn't even own North Korea... but they pull the puppet strings occasionally.  We have naval and/or air bases in the places I mentioned (not sure on India or Pakistan though).  And anyway, we would use air and sea bombardment in such a war long before sending in any ground troops.  Besides, we attack China, we'd have to go on the defensive all around because then China would have no problem eating up the smaller states--IE: Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Phillipines, Vietnam.

I would like to add. Didn't china not to long ago about 120 years ago have Korea gaged and duct taped?! Korean people were not even allowed to practice Taekwondo

120 years ago people were not even flying in air craft.  Politics has greatly changed our world (China and Korea included) since WWII.

Yeah how the hell would we get troops over the  Hymaliain mountains? I really think that our best be would be going a little north. Russia. China, and Russia are at each others throats right now They would be a perfect candidate for holding a backlog of troops, and equipment. 

Russia wouldn't let the US march their troops on through... maybe one of the splinter states.  But that wouldn't put us close enough to the juicy part of China.

Don't you notice how much of Asia the northern part of Siberia, and Russia cover of the northern Part of asia?

Oh, I was saying that going through the splinter states wouldn't put us close enough the eastern China.  Russia would connect, as would Kazakhstan to Mongolia.  But you have to remember that Russia is the LAST place in the world that you want to move troops in--the cold there has defeated two of the greatest armies in history:  Napolean's and Hitler's.  Even if we're "just passing through" (which I don't think Russia would condone) it'd be dangerous to do--especially if the Chinese decided to jump on us and invade north--bogging down our troops and letting the cold do its dirty work.  Because even with proper supplies we now have, the cold of Siberia and Kamchatka would be most demoralizing if not killing.

 

Just wanted to let you know I'm having fun with this conversation.

As am I, do you think I know well about this stuff as a 13 year old?

Perhaps--but we just have to remember that politics of the day makes things a lot more complicated than things were in the 1930's and 40's.  Battle doesn't work like it did in WWII anymore.  Also, something we all need to know more on is GEOGRAPHY.  I can't tell you how many times I've had to say, "I'd have to look at a map" when discussing the Iraq and Afghani-American wars.

The problem wasn't that Napoleon and Hitler invaded Russia, but the fact that they invaded in the summer. That's not much time to conquer Russia.

Yeah, I'm enjoying this a little also.

16 year old and questioning stupidity and authority - I like that - Keep it up!

 

But I do disagree with any plans to invade China- it's a loose-loose situation.

1. It's halfway around the world - hint: supply lines

2. There are 5+ BILLION Chinese 

3. There are only 300 million Americans 

4. After the clusterf*cks in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and here at home, our military is ill prepared for any long term land based battles. We just don't have the equipment or munitions!

5. I doubt you've noticed the decreases in arms and ammo or the increases in cost for both in this country in the past couple years... it's due to the military's demand to fight the so-called "War on Terrorism"... it's sucking up a lot of brass, lead and firearms from the private sector.

I never thought about the supply thing...good point there.

And thanks, I will continue questioning stuff!

I don't think we'll go to war with China, in fact I know we won't.  No country with a McDonalds has ever gone to war with another country with a mcdonalds.  It's not a war between countries even now in Iraq, it's a war between corporate interests and the oligarch class and the lower class.  We already won in china, Industry and authoritarianism triumphed over the workers.  It's the companies that are waging these wars more than the nations, and the companies are multinational.  Those companies war with states that have resources that can be privatized and workers who can be exploited.