This is what scares me about China:
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4 — RogueAI

Yeah, I've hear about this before where China is trying to use IT technology to turn their cities into police states instead of using it to try and make peoples lives better. In the US you can have trouble getting certain jobs if you have a bad credit score, but at least the city and state authorities that are here don't use it to "identify troublemakers". The problem with using credit scores to identify "good"/"bad" people is that credit scores are really just a reflection of a persons financial status and not criminal/moral behavior since ALOT of law abiding people who never have committed a crime in their lives can have really bad credit scores if they either have a medical emergency and/or lose their job and unable to quickly acquire a new one.

Maybe their is a difference between "credit scores" in the US and China, but if they are not then it would be a bit unethical to judge citizens with bad credit scores as trouble makers if the reason for having a bad score was because of financial problems. Of course often in a police state being "poor" can be a crime in and of itself and because of this it wouldn't matter if one was a law abiding citizen but had financial issues since the fact that they are unable to produce wealth themselves could or would be not better than the actions of a common criminal. Welcome to the new "new world order".

I think the days of superpowers are over, thank goodness. Countries that were traditionally poor and powerless are now gaining economic and political strength. Everyone is connected to everyone else by economic ties. We can't screw them without screwing ourselves.

China is just starting to act like we do. Yes, that could be a frightening prospect. — T Clark

The US may not be the nicest superpower to ever exist, but I would have to agree with other forum members that it is better for a world to be protected by the US then ruled under China.

Living in China right now people can be detained and jailed indefinitely just because someone claims that they are a dissident or enemy of the state. I don't know if it is as bad as North Korea with their concentration camps, but it is likely not that much better.

Take for a moment to imagine somehow North Korea became as powerful as China and started flexing it's military muscles and started talking about attacking South Korea and perhaps Japan as well if the US and her allies didn't just let them seize South Korea and whatever territory they wanted to. While it is a given that any military aggression by North Korea would be confronted by forces by either US and her allies the very idea of your country being taken over and having to live under thumb of the North Korean dictator would be about as terrifying for any democratic country in Asia as it would be for any European country to be taken over by either Hitler or Stalin when either of them were alive.

While China may not be quite as bad as North Korea at the moment, they are increasingly hostile and threatening to their neighboring countries. They have even managed to alienate Australia through cyber attacks and military action who they use to have much better relations with. Any country they manage to take over would have their government replaced with a puppet one from China and the country would no longer be a country but merely another subservient state under the rule of China.

In a nutshell if China manages to become the biggest super power in the world and nobody can or will stop them, they will just keep swallowing one country after another until either most or all of the world is under the authoritarian rule of China itself. While some people claim that living in a world under US rule is kind of like living under either authoritarian rule or under some neo-feudalism, I'm pretty certain that living under Chinese rule with people in charge like the current authorities in China would be much, much worse and the people living under such conditions and people would be treated not that better than animals as their only existence would be to serve the state, much like those that are forced to live in North Korea.

I more or less agree with your post, while China wants to take over Taiwan it is unlikely for them to do so with military action and if they DO take military action the negative consequences for them in doing so will likely be so disadvantageous that it wouldn't be worth anything they get for taking Taiwan. In other words, it might be a worse experience for them than what happened in Viet Nam for the US.

However, China it seems lately to be willing to take actions against their neighbors such as Australia (such as in cyber attacks and sending military vessels near their coast) as a way of demonstrating their belief that they ARE the dominate superpower in Asia and that they believe that there is nothing anyone can do to stop this. Of course, such actions haven't gone unnoticed and right now Australia and China are not as friendly with each other as they use to be. It is plausible that such actions were miscalculations on the behalf of Chinese leadership, but if they are willing to blunder into such actions as to make friendly countries a lot less friendly with them than it is plausible blunders on their part could eventually turn the cold war they have started with West and her allies into more of a hot war.

Right now, they seem to be content with their sabre rattling and rhetoric of bring fire and brimstone to anyone that isn't willing to kowtow to the power that be in China but it is unknown how long they will be happy saying such things and at what point they are really willing to back up their words with real action.

As I mentioned before it seems like China isn't really ready to back up their words with action, but from what little I know they are doing everything in their power to beef up their army, navy, and air force in a way to make it seem like they might be more ready in the future to act. Also there is an issue with their economy where it seems like they intend to be the most powerful economic superpower in the world in the upcoming years. I don't know what power they will gain from either or both moves, but something tells me if they are doing so much preparations in trying to undermine the US and her allies at the present that it is unlikely that they will continue to sit on their hands in the coming decades with some move to show off to the West their military/economic might in the hopes that the US and other countries will either back down or even bow down to China.

While it isn't a given this will happen, I believe that history has shown that when a country spends a lot of money on military build up (often at the expense of domestic projects) that the leaders of such countries are kind of under pressure for them to try and start solving problems through military force (instead of relying on diplomatic means), and the issue of the possible negative outcome of such actions are no longer as important as they once were.

I just got an interesting insight into this issue, someone pointed out to me that Xi Jinping is 68 years old and it is possible he may want to create a kind of legacy before he gets to old, passes, etc.

This is an interesting variable into why China is so much more interested in taking Taiwan, if the leader of China wants to cement what China did under his rule there would be no better action then China taking Taiwan against the will of the Us and the rest of the west in doing so. I don't know if such a desire would be enough for him to follow through (likely even in the face of some of his top generals) but from some people in Xi's position personal ambition often can trump real issues in taking such actions.

Also another factor is if Xi is 68 and he is aware of past hopes of taking Taiwan he may realize that the US has never really allowed China to have a good window of opportunity for invading Taiwan. In fact, the only thing they can really hope for is that it is almost a given that their soldiers will be willing to fight to take Taiwan, it is not so well know if US and allied soldiers are willing to do the same or if US politicians have the stomach to go through with such a war. Personally I think it is almost a given that we would be willing to fight considering what is at stake, but it is plausible that Xi's belief is that the US and our allies will falter in the face of such a conflict and the invasion/taking of Taiwan won't be as much trouble as the US imagines it would be.

If this insight does anything it is a good enough reason for any why Xi and the rest of China are so willing to turn up the war rhetoric and deal with the possible negative consequences of looking so aggressive in the face of other countries. I guess all we can do is see what Xi is willing to do to achieve such ambitions.

War is insanity. Fortunately, we have international law and international organizations that might prevent war, and this was not so in the past. For sure China is testing all boundaries. A check of what Chinese citizens think of the US is not good. https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-how-do-chinese-people-view-america It is concerning to me that China has invested so much in military might, considering from our point of view, no one is threatening China. The majority of Chinese citizens have an unfavorable opinion of the US and I think this should concern us. Things were not always like this. When Nixon was cozying up to China, it was fashionable to have clothing reflecting Chinese fashion. We learned of Tao, I Ching, and The Art of War. Something has gone very wrong and I think it is good to attempt to understand why. — Athena

I'm not too sure that either international law and international organizations will be able to do much in preventing a war with China or at least any more than people in China itself have a say in stopping those in power who want to start a war. As I mentioned in previous posts the real reasons why China wasn't already invaded Taiwan and is still waiting to do so is that they are worried of what the possible negative repercussions will be if they invade Taiwan and the US comes to their aid.

Here is a video explaining what it would be like if the US went to war with China (using only convention military and no nukes) and what the potential outcome for China would be:



While it isn't a given that the US would want to expand a conflict in Taiwan to China itself, I imagine it is doubtful that we would want to sit on our hands have navy units sit idle and let Taiwan get bombarded by Chinese aircraft/navy units if we have the capacity to do so. The long and short of this means that China's only hope would be to invade and take Taiwan with so much speed that neither the military in Taiwan nor the US would be able to react quick enough to stop it and for the US to just give up after Taiwan was taken over. However this is fairly unlikely since it would likely take days or even months for China to prepare and do this, the US and Taiwan would likely know about an invasion before it even started, and a mobilized/fortified Taiwan could put up enough resistance long enough for the US (and any allies) to intervene to make taking over Taiwan that much more difficult. If the war is fought in the near future and US intervenes with China's invasion of Taiwan it is basically game over for China. It isn't a given that the US and her allies would be about to take out of her navy and air force but it is most likely they would suffer enough losses that they would no longer be able to project as much naval/air power as they do right now and any naval blockade and other economic repercussions that it is most likely they would rather try to make peace before the US had to mount a full invasion of China itself. Although it is also possible for China no to want to stop such a war even at that point, the problems of a protracted war with US and any allies after an effective naval blockade/ceasing of their global export/imports would be even more devastating to their economy and that would take away the one ace up China's sleeve when it comes to them being a global superpower - their economy.

It isn't that surprising that currently many Chinese have a negative impression of the US since many people in other countries that we are allied with along with people in the US have a negative impression with either the Us government and/or the people that live here. Part of the issue with the negative impress some of them have is that the US is still enough of a super power that we can still effectively put a wet blanket on some of their efforts to become the world's biggest super power and even their desire to become effectively become the biggest super power in Asia. I believe the US is still the biggest influencer in Asia, but of course it is almost a given that every day China seems to be getting closer to challenging us in that position. In the upcoming years China may be better prepared than they are today, but at the present I believe China is not really ready to take on the US.

Oddly enough, while their desire to take on Taiwan for national reasons may be bad enough to stir up some irk from people outside China, I also believe that they are rational enough not to undertake such desire. The reason is simply that if they try to invade Taiwan, it will become like a military " honeypot" for them - or something that seems valuable when you try and get it but in the end is much more trouble than it is ever worth. While the US's position is that they don't actively seek to go to war with any country, they are willing to fight with any country that tries to invade any friendly democratic countries that didn't do anything to provoke such an invasion. In essence, while we don't like China's flexing it's economic/military (and it's ability to do even more about it in the future) we can't really do anything about right now because they are doing anything enough for the US to take action about it. HOWEVER if China did invade Taiwan it would totally change the context of the problem and it would motivate the average American (and even some of the citizens in allying countries) for the US to no longer sit on our hands and for us to do much more against China's attempt at becoming a big of super power as the US itself.

In an odd way if China really hopes to become a super power as the US they are going to put their national desire of taking over Taiwan and other places on hold and do better at having more allies then they have at the present. However this is also very unlikely because the more they build up their military and give more speeches about how they are going to use their military to get what they want, it sours almost any alliance they might have with other democratic countries. While China in and of itself is powerful, it is unlikely they are or willing be powerful enough to take on any real military target unilaterally and deal with the consequences of doing so.

While many people in the world may not have a favorable view of the US and/or our government, they at least many of them feel that it isn't as bad as it would be if China became the world's biggest superpower and was able to challenge us more than they can at the present. It may not sound like a great excuse for the US to point out that we are at least not as horrible to our own citizens and other countries as China can be, but this small sliver of civility we have with other countries along with other diplomatic measures is part of the reasons we are able to keep countries like China and/or Russia in check and thwart the measures they try to take to try and expand on their own empires any more than they already do. I imagine if either China or Russia had better relations with other countries (other than just each other) and their own people it might be easier for them to expand, however something tells me it isn't always easy having "friends" when your running a country like China, Russia, or even the US for that matter.

In a way it is kind of like the old children's story of the dog with two bones, sometimes it might be better to just be happy with what you have then to be greedy and risk losing it while trying to get something else. Unfortunately such wisdom is often lost when it comes to leaders of powerful countries who more often than not got to power by taking huge risk and by being for lack of a better word incredibly greedy when it comes to choices they make even when they already have all the power when it comes to running their own country.

http://leejohndrow.com/a-dog-with-two-bones-a-tale-of-choice/

I believe this is also a problem with some people that manage to start up and create their own business. When I worked at a local casino as a slot tech, I would often hear about people that own their own business that had gambling problems who's debts were so bad that they ended up having to give up the businesses they owned to the casino. I'm not sure if it is a given that people who took such risk in running a business are more likely to have issues than other people, but it is hard for me to fathom how someone that is has enough savvy to run a business would be foolship enough to lose it merely due to gambling unless they had a real issue with it. Also it seems people born in Asian cultures like to gamble more than people that are not. I'm not sure if these issues will play a part in whether China actually tries to invade Taiwan, but I'm sure we will find out in the near future. I'm pretty sure the new rulers in China are more aggressive/willing to take on huge risks than the people they replaced, but I believe it is doubtful they are foolish enough for them to be willing to risk/sacrifice the bone that they have in merely the hopes of getting another one.

After watching the following video I'm under the impression that living in any place that is under control of Chinese Communist Party would be really no more different than living in the world describe in George Orwell's book "1984". I don't know if it is really any better or worst then living in the USSR during the cold war but it is a bit unsettling to realize that living in present day China is not all that different then being a citizen that has to live in North Korea.



It make me nervous to think that such a government is in control of the second most power country in the world after the US.

Man, just take out our satellites and almost completely destroy the US defense system and the ability to support it. Without those satellites to keep our technology functioning, I don't think the US would have a defense. :lol: I would give them 3 days before they are on the streets killing each other with their own guns. — Athena

If they decided to start shooting down satellites, I think that the US wouldn't take that very lightly and we would do everything in our power to send some more satellites to replace the one's we lost. While the loss of multi-million dollar satellites wouldn't be a great thing to happen, it wouldn't really cause that much harm if they didn't follow up with such an attack with some kind of military action.

I don't know that the US could really do to China if they did such a thing, but I'm guessing it wouldn't help them much to do such an action since it would definitely cause the US to be less friendly when they start destroying military and/or civilian assets for no other reason then they felt like doing so.

Good analysis! :up:. — TheMadFool

Thanks! :D

I just hope that it isn't that far off from what is currently going on.

I'm hoping this'll happen sooner or later. Individuals usually get tired of the toys they have - they get bored and what was before an exciting plaything becomes dull and fails to evoke the, thrilling as hell, dopamine rush. — TheMadFool

I agree. I believe if the US doesn't either bow down nor poke the panda too much we should be ok as long as China doesn't become much more aggressive than they already are.

If we consider the fact that there are still thousands of active warheads, located around the world, it will just be a matter of time before they will be actually used. However rational the stalemate, some are just mad and wanna win. — KaimBasha

Nuclear warheads and other NBC type weapons are really only useful as a deterrent to preventing another country from trying to invade you since you could "theoretically" get away with using a nuke against a military force (somewhere outside of your country where they are building up for an invasion) if that force was much too big for your own military to deal with. Also they can be useful if you need to strong arm a neighboring country that has powerful conventional forces but no nuke themselves.

It may be just my personal opinion but as long as an all out nuclear war doesn't happen in the near future the human race should be "ok". I don't know of the consequences of what one or two nukes places that are critically important (like major cities in the biggest countries of the world) other than such events could spark further use of such weapons but something like a nuke going off in an area that isn't highly populated would be more manageable and may not spark further escalation. Of course why a nuke might be use on a target of not so much value is hard to fathom, but I'm just saying it could be used in such a way with the hope that such an action wouldn't spark a nuclear war.

On the bright side as technology advances, countries are constantly trying to develop conventional munitions that while not have as big of a bang as a nuke they can still deliver enough devastation to neutralize a threat almost as well as a nuke (if used repeatedly). In WWII carpet bombing often would a city so devastated (along with thousands that lived there killed or injured) that they were hardly much better off than a city that was nuked. While nuclear weapons have their own extra unpleasantness (like radiation) to make them scarier in the minds of the public, if you ever saw a city that was bombed so badly that the burning building started creating a firestorm you would realize you don't really need nukes if all you want to do is lay waste to a city. Of course you usually need more than a single bomb to start a firestorm in a major city, and deliberately trying to incinerate a city and the people in it is usually looked down upon by one's allies and civilians in one's own country. Luckily I believe such methods haven't really been used since WWII (partly because there isn't a real need to do so as well as it is much more likely a city would rather give up if they are given an ultimatum that they would be bombed if they don't).

Firestorm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestorm

I guess what I'm trying to get at is it is often accepted by two powers to rely mostly on conventional forces to do the fighting and deciding who is the victor in most modern conflicts. Of course it is a given that most of the modern conflicts have NOT been between two major powers who have nukes and/or the conflicts have not involved territory that is really vital to the interest of a power that has nukes. Hopefully it stays that way.

To use a chess analogy, we have 3 options:

1. Checkmate
2. Draw
3. Stalemate

Option 1 is impossible (MAD). Option 2 is pointless (why fight if you can't win). Option 3 seems to be the only one that makes sense (cold war).

Amazing ain't it how it all works out? Everybody goes for the win - the checkmate - which is, obviously, irrational but then what happens is the most rational state of affairs - the stalemate - game theoretically that is.

Being illogical ultimately leads to being logical. I haven't the slightest clue how that comes about? — TheMadFool

What you say is true, but only IF both sides have more to lose (or at least think they do) if they decide to resolve their differences through conflict and this only happens if this is what both sides believe that through out the time where they they could potentially go to war.

While thinking about this is issue today I came across these videos:






The above videos made me realize a couple things about China and it's desire to seize control over Taiwan. One is that while the rhetoric lately has gotten more aggressive while China saying that owns Taiwan, the fact that Taiwan is independent (sort of like one of the US states seceding from the US) has been a thorny issue for China for some time now. While they may not be tolerate of this state of affairs and may act like they are becoming even less tolerate as time goes on, if it was REALLY as bad as they say it is they would have likely have tried to take control of the island in the past and wouldn't even bother to wait all this time for the right moment to strike. However because they have chosen to play a waiting game and allowed Taiwan develop into a full fledge independent country, the "right" time to invade may have already passed them since now it is easier for Taiwan to ask for help if they are attacked. If China invade either during their civil uprising or right after the communist took control, the rest of the world may have written it off as part of a civil war and the West may have been less eager to get involved.

The second thing may be is that China's navy and air force may not be on par with the US and they could suffer heavy casualties if they went against air and naval units made and trained by Western power. I'm not one that is good at figuring out who's military is better or worse than another's but from what little I have heard about Chinese air force and navy it seems they rely using stolen intellectual property they get from the West in order to try to keep up with Western powers. When a country isn't willing to spend enough money on R&D to either surpass or at least keep up with potential enemies, it is almost given that anything you can muster to fight against your enemy will be pretty far behind whatever they have. This is most evident when it comes to one's air force and navy were inferior technology can put one at the greatest disadvantage (ie. one can not easily make up for inferior technology by just using greater numbers) and if China's navy/air force is nowhere near as good as their western counterparts, then seizing and maintaining dominance over Taiwan will be very difficult if the US comes to Taiwan's aid, which it is all but a given that we would.

If the two above issues are true then it is kind of a head scratcher as to why China is heating up it's rhetoric about them owning Taiwan and taking military actions to make it look like they may be getting ready to invade. It may be just a case of sour grapes where they know they can not take Taiwan at the present time and them saying that they are willing to invade when they know they can't without facing consequences that they are unwilling to face at the present time. However I imagine such posturing itself will likely have the undesired consequence of making the West think of China as a rogue country, alienate potential friendly or neutral countries like Australia ,and ramp up potential western military might in the area.

In Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" it is written somewhere I think where one should make your armies look weak if they are strong if in fact that they are weak. I don't know if this train of thought really applies to modern warfare since one needs to almost always make the enemy think or know your armies are strong to prevent conflicts, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't hurt to use constant deception to make it difficult for one's advisory to really know what is going on. My guess is that since nearly every military commander in China as well as many politicians understand Sun Tzu's teachings it is hard for me to imagine that if China really did become strong enough to invade Taiwan and had the political will to do so (ie they could deal with the consequences of such an invasion), that they would be so eager to let the West know that they have such power and that they are getting ready to use it. It is common sense that if one really wanted to invade a country and seize their land it is most efficient to NOT to let your enemy know anything about such intentions until it has already been done

Because of fallacies involved in such behavior before an actual invasion and any or all problems in doing any kind of military actions near that area, China has more or less lost any element of surprise they might of had and it is almost a given that even if China did take measures to be more prepared for an invasion in the near future such measures will be undermined by measures taken by western powers to make it harder for an invasion.

It is possible that all of China's posturing is that they hope Taiwan will give up fro either political or other non-military pressure before a shot is fired, but that is a incredibly unlikely scenario since most citizens in democratic countries are really warm to an idea of their lives being under control of an Authoritative state. If all China has is merely rhetoric when it comes to them wanting to control Taiwan, and they really don't have enough military might to easily (or easy enough) seize Taiwan, then it is fairly likely that they are just trying to appear strong when they are not and are hoping that outsiders will be afraid enough of their paper mache military that will be able to broker more favorable economic/political deals then if outsiders were not afraid. If this is true than it is almost a given that China will not be able to invade Taiwan or become the biggest super power in the Asian region for some time to come, and we will just have a cold war with them until they tire of this as well..

This is the paradox: The more lethal weapons are, the less likely armed conflict is. Nobody wants to die (for nothing). MAD (mutually assured destruction) is an effective deterrent, more so than pacifism. — TheMadFool

I think the more accurate way to put it is that with NBC type weapons the level of collateral damage becomes so high that it becomes difficult to justify the gains of any war when compared to that would be lost. One should note that during modern convention wars "usually" the damage is contained to the enemies military and maybe a few economic/strategic targets unless things get worse and then it becomes what one might describe as a unrestricted type war. In any case, usually the wealthiest people and their assets in either country are not usually damaged since neither side wants to destroy any centers of commerce or product which will either may be needed to support a war effort or help rebuilding and/or paying for costs reconstruction after a war is fought - unless of course a losing side decides on using a scorched earth mentality (such as during the first Iraq war with the Us, and what Russians did to their cities and towns before the Germans took control of them) but of course such measures are one of what one might do when it is inevitable when one can not win.

It is kind of funny to say it but part of the reasons countries are so willing to fight is that those making such decisions are not all that worried that their lives will be upended by any damage caused by conventional wars however when a war goes from one that is restricted to one that is unrestricted that also involves NBC weapons this definitely and all of a sudden all the chicken hawks start having second thoughts when their own lives and/or livelihoods could be ruined by damaged caused during the conflict.

I believe that before World War I and World War II there was a similar issue with explosives and machine guns where lose of life was so great that it required that wars to be fought differently than what generals were use to and enough advancement in medical technology where being shot with a gun didn't end up either with one losing their life or one of more limbs. Supposedly the doctor who invented the Gatling gun did it so that the effects gun would be so devastating that people would not want to fight wars in which such weapons are used. It is obvious that while the Gatling gun and similar weapons did more damage then the guns before it, it wasn't so devastating to really give as much a pause to people fighting that the person who invented it hoped for.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that in the near or perhaps not so near future either their will be a way to mitigate some or most of the damage caused by NBC weapons or there could be an advisory that has them that isn't afraid of the consequences of MAD. With nukes there exists the possibility of them being intercepted before they hit there intended target, and with biological weapons there is the possibility that certain medical advances could make some of them less deadly such as the advancements to make COV-ID less deadly than it was when it first came out. I guess the same could be said of chemical warheads as nuclear unless they use alternate delivery systems (such as a shells instead of rockets, or a terrorist with a backpack delivery system) but means are more of a limited range or means of delivery that they may nor be as effective as intercontinental missiles in use today.

The real danger of NBC weapons comes from those that either have nothing to lose (ie. a organization that isn't backed by any country) or someone that has what one could call "total commitment" (is willing to lose any and everything they and their love ones have in order to damage or destroy their enemy or enemies). When one isn't bothered by whatever consequences that could happen to them if their enemy even uses NBC and or any other weapons at their disposal then it is almost all but a given that effects of MAD is no longer an effective deterrent to them. Luckily the powers that be in China are very unlikely to have this kind of mentality, or at least not at the present

What's up with the US and gun control? Explains proxy wars (skirmishes essentially at a global scale and also winnable), cold wars (stalemate), and arms races (messing with balance of power). — TheMadFool

I'm not sure how exactly how gun control and possible war with China really tie in together. I think the problem with gun control in America is basically we Americans for some reason have a weird love relationship with our guns and some of us can't have enough of them. I don't know if it is either because we are more capitalistic than other countries (buying junk that we don't really need or buying something in the hopes it will solve something that it doesn't) or if the average American is neurotic/psychotic then your average person in another part of the world or maybe it is a combination of both of them as some other issues.

I think some of the average upper middle class American (and/or those wealthier) who for one reason or another doesn't feel in control of their lives often tend to want to buy and practice with their guns because they are afraid that one day they will get a visit from the "boogey man" (ie a criminal who wants to hurt them and their family) and they hope the fact that they own a gun will prevent them from harming them. Also some Americans might be so neurotic that they feel that for one reason or another the US might not be able to protect themselves from other countries and that we might get invade and because of that they will need to protect themselves with the guns from those invading us. Or perhaps they are afraid of powers that be in their state realize that they are a danger to themselves and others and send some cops to take them away and they plan to stop that from happening with whatever guns they have.

Bottom line, there are enough Americans are either gun/trigger happy to make it seem like almost every American sleeps with a gun under their pillow. I don't know if this has anything to do with the fact that after WWII the US government has had to try whip up support for a variety of wars that have happened at least every ten years or so and/or if Americans are just nuts for some other reason. Maybe it is just something in the water we drink that makes us so infatuated with buying and having guns around us.

So much for probability and the alleged unreasonable effectiveness of math....

All we can say is the likelihood ain't cipher and that's not very helpful is it?

You're aware of DEFCON system, right? It seems the US military and probably other armies around the world have in place some criterion to measure the likelihood of war. — TheMadFool

I could be wrong but I imagine neither China nor the US want to resort to NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) type weapons even if China tries to invade Taiwan.

Part of the reasoning is IF China did use such weapons that it is almost a given that ALL US allies would immediately side with the US and would do everything they can to deter China from trying to expand and/or attempt to become a superpower. Of course if the US was the first to do this almost all allies won't want to help the US and/or Taiwan and China would likely get the upper hand.

My guess is that the US would rather NOT use any NBC weapons and would solely rely on more conventional weapons (which can be pretty devastating themselves without NBC type weapons) even if in doing so they couldn't keep China from taking Taiwan, but the question is more about if China is willing to use NBC weapons if they believe things aren't going their way in a conflict.

I could be wrong but I don't think China would use NBCs against either Taiwan, the US, or any of her allies because no country) not even Nazi Germany resorted to using them when they started losing World War II.

I could be wrong but I believe very few leaders (or generals that control such stockpiles) are as eager to use such weapons as convention troops are eager to fight with what they have due to the ramifications of what will either happen to them (ie the leaders and generals themselves) or what might happen to their own families when they expand a war to use such weapons,

If a country is either trying to become a super power through expansion or merely hold onto the power they have, it is very difficult to maintain such power if you and another adversary start using NBCs since the devastation is so great and the damage done to each side can weaken both countries that they can become venerable to other countries that before the conflict posed no threat.

Or in other words a super power that has to use NBCs (with another country that either has them or is allied with one that has them) will no longer be a super power once the other side decides to use them against them as well.

I could be wrong in all of this but the fact that China isn't directly threating with nukes or chemical weapons is kind of suggests that they don't want to get into a conflict where they have to use them.

It is about having power and right now we need every bit of power we can get because China is spinning out of control. As I said war is insanity. I have no memory of China expanding its territory since all of China came under one ruler. Something has triggered China to disrespect the status quo and I think this is a very serious situation. — Athena

Exactly! China use to be happy just in controlling it's borders and maintaining it's status quo in the world but now it changing it's stance to one of being one of being a super power that either rivals the US and her allies and being a superpower more powerful than the US itself.

Does anyone know why China has become so aggressive? — Athena

I believe that is the five thousand dollar question. Maybe they feel that they are close enough in power to the US that they can do whatever they want, maybe it is just a change of posturing in order to gain more political power in their country (kind of like the game some republicans sometimes play by pretending we don't have to care what other countries opinions are), or maybe they are doing because they don't believe any other country can or will stand up to them if they just do whatever they feel like doing.

It is kind of odd that instead of playing the slow and methodical game in the past (which worked fairly well since the US and her allies didn't pay them much attention), they are now being much much more aggressive to the point where they are beating their chest and going so far as to threaten US allies with potential war. The world is use to powers that be doing this in either the US and or the former USSR but for China to behave this way almost all of a sudden is definitely odd because it means either they don't have to worry about pissing other countries off or they are trying to act like they don't have to worry about it. As far as I know the US goes back and forth (one day being nice and the next not so nice, kind of like a good cop/bad cop routine) with such rhetoric when dealing with our allies and or other countries, but China seems to be going for bad cop/bad cop kind of routine. I'm kind of at a lost as to why they are trying to show this kind of face to the rest of the world unless they imagine that they can really do whatever they want regardless of what other countries think.

Maybe I'm wrong and all they are is really just a baby tiger instead of a mean and vicious bear they are trying to pretend to be. But even if they are not really ready to be the world superpower that they think that they are, I sure they have enough people, resources, etc. to make themselves a bit of a headache for the West in the years to come. However if they are almost at the point of being a super power on pare with the US, it is going to take carefully planning and work with our allies in the West to make sure China realizes that they really can't just do whatever they want.

I'm sure part of all these issues might stem from the fact that other countries meddled in China's affairs in the recent past and now they want to undo such meddling (or perhaps do some meddling of their own to make up for other countries interference), but the problem is they can't make up for the fact that others stepped on their toes without ending up stepping on other peoples toes in the process. I might seem crazy that they are trying to do this out of national pride because of certain embarrassments in the past, but they wouldn't be the first would be superpower using such an excuse in order to try to strong arm other countries.

The OP's a mathematical question about odds/chances/probability of in general hot wars and in particular a sino-US military engagement. I know basic probability but to give a good answer is beyond my ken. Where do I even begin? Perhaps experimental probability is the way to go - how many times in the past has a similar situation been true of the world and ended in bellum? Do we have the data? I'm surprised at the answers though - people seem surprisingly confident of their answers despite the fact that no one posted a figure/number and showed their work. — TheMadFool

I don't think one can use basic statistics in determining whether China will be willing to go to war in order to get control over Taiwan since there are too many unknown variables in such a equation that would nearly be impossible to give a percentage chance at any time. It is as complex or even more complex that determining whether the stock market will either go up or down in a 6 month or 12 month period.

What is know however is that if and when China chooses to strike (or perhaps in might just be a question of WHEN since China has already said they will use military force if Taiwan doesn't choose to surrender to China in the near future) it will most likely when either they feel like they have a clear cut advantage or when it starts becoming evident that Taiwan is about to gain an advantage that is will make invading Taiwan much more difficult if China doesn't act quickly. Because of this China has put Taiwan and any potential allies they might have in a "dammed" if they do, dammed if they don't situation making so that if they don't prepare enough for an invasion it is very likely China will gain an advantage and invade, but also if they start preparing TOO well for an invasion China will get upset that we are trying to make it impossible for them to take control of Taiwan and it is likely they would want to strike before such preparations can really be put in place. Because of this the US and Taiwan have been trying to make just enough preparations to give China pause in wanting to invade immediately because they don't have a clear cut advantage but not enough preparations that China doesn't feel like they couldn't take over Taiwan if they really wanted to. However this will not be as easy in the coming future since China is aggressively building up it's military making harder and harder to to make difficult for Taiwan (and their allies) to build up it's military readiness without poking the panda into war.

It is already a given that China is in sort of a cold war with the US and her allies(both economically and military), wants to replace the US as the dominate super power in Asia, and is threating it will resort to war if they don't get what they want in the very near future.

I believe when it comes to guestimating possibilities in economics, political actions, and wars planners use certain indicators to figure out whether one thing is more likely than not. As far as China goes nearly any and every red flag that could be raised has either been raised or is about to be raised other than a troop build up in order to invade Taiwan. However the only reason China hasn't do this is it would be noticed and it would let Taiwan and the US know an attack is imminent. Because of this China may take steps to NOT let Taiwan and the US know that they are about to strike at least until it is too late.

To the best of my knowledge the only reason China isn't ready to invade Taiwan is the issue of how to deal with the economic and political fallout once they start a war with Taiwan and the US, The US and China are currently very dependent on each other economically and it is a given both countries will face problems once they start taking military actions against Taiwan. Some may believe China won't go to war with Taiwan because of the economic (and perhaps political) reasons and all their sabre rattling is just a lot of hot air to try and scare the US and her allies into giving them Taiwan. However it is hard to imagine a country such as Taiwan just surrendering to China out of fear alone.

I guess the bottom line is China just going to give up it's ambition on being the biggest superpower in Asia in order to avoid the economic and political ramifications in going to war or is China going to at one point decide that they is a way they can deal with such issues or that such issues are not as important as them showing the rest of the world that they are the most powerful super power in Asia 9and eventually in the world), that they are not to be trifled with, and there is little to nothing that the US and her allies can do in preventing China from doing what it wants to do.

Or perhaps in other words to the question of going to war with Taiwan, the US, and her allies at what point will China really believe that can do whatever they want without worrying about what the Western powers can do about it and try to stop them? Obviously right now they haven't reached that point (and perhaps they will never really get there) but it is almost a given they are trying everything in their power to be in that position in the near future.

Hopefully this answers your question as to what is the probability of China invading Taiwan. :D

Here are two YouTube that I believe shed some light on this discussion:

Yes, China has said so, and given the history of China in the 20th century, I get that perspective and I have no reason to believe they are bluffing.

People in power do have to deal with nukes, but I highly doubt most sane citizens would want those used, I mean they're not supposed to be used at all, the point of having them is deterrence not attack. — Manuel

Part of the problem with nukes is since they are a weapon of last resort (by those that are sane at least), countries that have them (and have other countries threating them) have to make other countries think that they are are willing to not as a last resort but long before they even get there. I believe this is what nuclear brinkmanship more or less is all about, making your opponent think you are more willing to use nukes than them thus complicating any military advantage they may have with conventional forces and their ability to exploit such an advantage.

While nuclear brinkmanship isn't always all that fun to due, if nukes didn't exist there would probably been a least one or perhaps two additional world wars by now so it is a given they are a mixed blessing.

All I'm saying that it's a dangerous game of chicken to be playing. It's bad enough that China and the US are doing military exercises in the South China sea, but if you get other countries copying the US in the same territory, that's considerably different. To be clear, I don't think most of the world cares about Taiwan to THAT degree (the exceptions being China and Taiwan, obviously) , it's more a manner of pride. — Manuel

It is almost always easier for those in power to beat the drums of war and blame problems on outsiders than trying to really focus and deal with domestic issues. However, the more that is spent on the military and the more rhetoric to is spew, the harder and harder the line a country has to take to either a real or imagined enemy and the more need for such a country has to go to war in order to prove they are not just bluffing.

It may seem stupid to say that the reasons countries choose to have a military build up and then go to war is often more about politicians keeping the reigns of power than any real threat or reason, but who ever said that wars are fought for rational reasons or that politicians are really the most rational people?

Sometimes wars are fought merely because those in power are better at foaming at the mouth (or beating their shoe on a deck) and intimidating while playing this game of chicken you are talking about then at doing anything else for their country. Actually fixing real problems is are long and hard process that is often thankless job for those politicians that choose to do that, while acting like a mad dog in front of your enemies I image is not quite so hard and likely to get immediate approval but any chicken hawks in your own party.

In nutshell, it is often easier to exploit the worst in human nature then what is best in us or at least when it comes to the politics of war or potential war. You may not like me saying this, but it is just a fact and it isn't something I have any control over.

I love the arguments that China and the US will not start a war that could possibly destroy the world but I am afraid wars are a form of insanity and we are headed into that insanity. I am so angry with Biden for being disrespectful and pushing the wrong buttons. Evidently, he thinks this is appealing to US citizens? But saving face is of supreme importance to China and Japan, being disrespectful is pushing the wrong buttons. The nation will not tolerate it. — Athena

I didn't agree with Trump and the republicans on many things when he was in office, but I agreed on their stance that they can't be soft on China about the issues with regarding trade, military posturing, etc. I'm not exactly sure what Biden is doing wrong in regard to China (other than not taking as hard as stance as Trump did).

The EU is not that far behind the U.S., economically. If the EU suddenly transformed into one large country with a government similar to Germany's, and started spending a lot of money on its military, and it's economy grew by 1/3 (to rival ours) do you think Americans would feel threatened by it? I don't. — RogueAI

The EU politically more divided then well more than any place else in the world with each country only interested in what is in it for them if they are in and threatening to leave the moment being in the union is a nuisance for them. As far as I can tell the EU is just a few powerful groups in Europe willing to work together when it suits them, but there isn't even enough unity between them to consider them a coalition of any kind. For the EU to be able to come together as if they were one country is hard to imagine any time in the near future. Maybe in a few hundred years there might be enough political and other changes that allow all the different cultures and ideologies to be able to work as one, but by then it would have to be a different Europe than the one that exists today.

Also, while I have a lot of problems with America, I wouldn't trade its government for China's. Would you? — RogueAI

I don't really know that much about China but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to live there. As to whether I would rather live in a country controlled through plutocracy or one controlled though totalitarianism, I would have to say that is one heck of a choice.

I don't think any rival state would dream of starting a war with the US.

A nuclear war could break out. Everybody loses. — Manuel

China has flat out state that the WILL start a war with Taiwan and any country helping them if either
A) Taiwan tries to declare itself an independent country from China
B) Taiwan actively seeks military help from any other country (such as the US) in potentially defending
them from China.
C) If Taiwan continues to act like a rogue province and China's patience runs out on waiting for Taiwan to China's authority over them.

One might think that this is just rhetoric or sabre ratting on China's part, but during the Korean war China didn't hesitate to send the people's volunteer army (PVA) into North Korean in order stop the US from taking over the country when things were not going their way.

When one is a superpower such as the US, Russia, or China one can't back back down just because the other side has nuclear capability as well. The issue of nukes does make things more complicated, but the people in power don't get into power if the the thought of nuclear brinkmanship scares them. Or at least they don't get into power in a country that is considered a super power at least.

That China will be fighting a war sometimes soon appears probable: it is flexing its military muscles and displaying a desire for dominance over its neighbours. But whether the US will take part in this war cannot be predicted. — Olivier5

The US has basically told Taiwan that we will not protect them if they try to provoke a war with China (which is very unlikely that they would want to do anyways), however IF China starts using military force against them or tries to invade them that we will come to their aid.

After looking into why China wants Taiwan so badly (and the US is so interested in them not having and controlling it), I found article about how global production of semiconductors is heavily based in Taiwan and US/Europe economies (because of everything built that is dependent on them) would heavily damaged by no longer being able to use such chips for manufacturing of their own electronic devices.

While there is always the remote possibility the US wouldn't intervene do to our resources being stretched too thin during another crisis that is even more problematic then China (or for that matter Russia) starting a war or wars and trying to invade other countries, my guess it is very very doubtful that under any circumstances would the US and her allies would want to sit on their hands when any of our allies are being either attacked or invaded when their the are multiple strategic risks involved in doing so.

If you have a reason (other than the US would be scare to fight China) please explain what it is. .

Which country, America or China has the greatest history of imperial expansion. Which country has the other surrounded with military installations and nuclear weapons? Which of the two countries, has more than nine hundred military installations around the world?
— boagie

These are the right questions. — StreetlightX

It isn't just about what one country HAS DONE in the past it is as important or even more important as to WHAT THEY CAN AND WILL DO if there is little to no hindrance to a or any countries desire to grab other countries and expand as much as they can. Do you really think that China would stop at just taking Taiwan if there was little to no hindrance in taking it and no resistance in the next country they wish to take?

The US use to be a somewhat friendly/backwater/isolationist country before world war one and world war two but after the wars and the power the military industrial complex got so big, things changed. Now we have become sort of the not so nice cop that has to patrol the streets of the world and who often gets into trouble while trying to do so.

China may seem not all that bad right now much like the US didn't seem all that bad before WWI and WWII, but how are you sure they would remain "nice" if they started getting a taste of expansion and their military complex started getting much much bigger? I can't be sure but I believe that they would start becoming less and less friendly to some of their neighbors (such as Japan whom they haven't forgiven for what their soldiers did in WWII), and it is likely they would start using their military and/or police for resolving internal/external issues much as the US has been doing in the last several decades. Having the former USSR as a super power rival wasn't really pretty and I'm betting if China manages to become more of a super power rival to the US, I'm betting it is not gonna be any more pretty then what happened when we had to deal with the former USSR.

As far as I know the former USSR didn't have any real plans for expansion (ie they hoped that the world would come to their senses and realize the benefits of a socialist economy vs a capitalist one and we would all peacefully be united under the banner of socialism ) but they did make efforts to "convince" other countries (through military and/or political means) to become so called "buffer states" to make it so Western powers had to go through them before being able to just march into Russia itself. Also they may of had few countries for economic/military reasons and not because they could act like buffer states.

I guess what I'm saying is that the former USSR wasn't all that excited about expansion, partly because of ideology, and perhaps partly due to their knowledge of how much trouble invaders had when trying to take over their own country. Of course if there was a situation where a country either didn't or couldn't resist their occupation they would likely take advantage of it as any superpower would likely do by either invading it or backing a political group and using them like a puppet government (just as the US has done with a few countries).

While the former USSR hoped to more or less eventually conquer through ideology, political means, and propaganda (with perhaps a military conflict here or there), I don't think they were that excited about having to mainly resort to military means or at least not so much with the Western powers standing in their way.

I don't know if the same can be said of China. I know China for decades now has been trying and very successfully been using economic means to gain various advantages over other countries while at the same time doing their best not to look that threating to the West. However the fact that they no longer are relying on just economic, political means but also starting to flex their military muscles in front of the West is marks a definite change in their policies/tactics in influencing the world.

By either becoming more aggressive, or merely allowing the outside to perceive them as more aggressive what are they trying and hope to achieve? Is it that they have a real reason for doing so or do they just no longer care how West power and other outsiders perceive them?

This is hard to prove since the two countries that have made serious bids at rivaling U.S. power have had governments Americans consider (with good reason) "evil". — RogueAI

There is saying I once hear that goes along the lines "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Is the US an aggressor, horrible even to it's own people, and spends WAY TOO MUCH MONEY on it's military instead of on social programs/infrastructure/etc., and often acts like a bad cop when dealing with world problems? You bet. But what would world look like without the US constantly trying flex it's superpower muscle while constantly creating problems in the rest of the world. Could their be many other countries also flexing their muscles and many other unmonitored wars were one side tries to commit genocidal warfare on another side like in Africa and Eastern Europe? Do you think it would be better or worse than it is now? IMHO I'm not really sure which it would be and it is likely I'm even much more aware of how horrible the US and has been than you know.

Many of these countries that either are or have tried to rival the US may not seem all that bad when they are unable to expand because of the US but try to imagine what some of them didn't have to worry about any intervention from the US and her allies. While it would be impossible for many of them to get as big as the US it is likely the bigger they got, the more invincible their leaders and military would think they are - and the more likely they would also spend more money on the military and less and less on their people. The only other examples of what one of these countries would look like is the former USSR and England before world war II, I could be wrong but neither of these super powers were much nicer to other countries than the US.

If power corrupts than absolute power corrupts absolutely. This may be true of the US and it's military industrial complex but I'm afraid that it is also true of any other country/military that somehow has enough power to really rival it.

If this for some reason is either a small country merely defending itself from the US (like in Vietnam) or a coalition of smaller countries trying to defend itself from the influence of the US and her allies, then it is plausible that such countries may be less of the bad guys than we are, but then it is almost a given that such countries are not really a rival to the US. I guess in a nutshell it is hard for a country or superpower to get as big as the US without being a bit corrupt/"evil" in when dong so.

And from that impression, you concluded there's going to be an attack? — Caldwell

I concluded that something is going to happen, with the least of these being a sort of cold war between the two. At the very least China is going to keep on posturing like they are able and willing to fight a war with the US over Taiwan and from time to time China will do some kind of military action in order to try to probe the US and her allies for any sign of weakness.

How scary/dangerous can such non-combat conflicts be you may ask? Well all you have to do is look back at the US blockade of Cuba to understand how bad such tic for tat actions can become even if no real military actions are involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis





I could be wrong but I believe the Russian subs that were at the blockade came VERY close to firing their nuclear weapons in retaliation to the action of the US warships at that time. In fact it was one of those times in history we almost has a limited exchange (or perhaps even a full exchange) of nuclear weapons between the US and the former USSR.

I agree with much of what you say, although not with the doctrine you describe above. The world has changed. We're not the only big fish in the pond anymore. There are more and more of them and there will continue to be more and more and more. — T Clark

It isn't a matter of if you agree with the "Hitler doctrine" but it is a matter of IF the US military industrial complex believes and follows it. You and me are hardly more than outside observers to the dilemma facing the China/US issue such whether you think the Hitler doctrine is a good idea or not is pretty much is a moot issue. You just have to understand what the powers in the US who are dealing with China are thinking and why their mindset in tis issue is important.

Also IF we really are no longer the big fish in the pond any more than it is even more of an issue than before. It means that the US has been asleep at the switch and let other problems pop up while being to focused on the so called "war on terrorism"/wars in the middle east and allowed other countries/other problems to fly under the radar and become real threats to us. We may have to more "diplomatic" with some of these countries that are either rivals to us or about to become rivals to us, but I don't think it is an option for the US and her allies to let them know that we have become a toothless tiger who can no longer stand up to any potential aggression. Once that happens we more or less are not the super power that we once were.

Back to the beginning. China is not acting like Germany in the 1930s. It is acting like the US has since the Monroe Doctrine. Throwing it's weight around. Interfering with other country's legitimate national interests.

World War II was worth what it cost, I guess. I suspect the Korean War was not, although I don't know enough to to say definitely. As for Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, the Bay of Pigs - I was alive for those. They were definitely not worth it. They were not in the US national interest. They hurt us more than helped.

Also, there are nuclear weapons now. That changes everything. — T Clark

You have misread some of what my posts have said. It is all but a GIVEN that ANY OTHER country that also acts like the US but isn't the US is a potential threat to the US and her allies. Yes, it is unfair for the US to have an attitude of do as we say not as we do when it comes to other countries, but when you have military bases around the world and spend more money on your military than the entire world combined you kind of think you are entitled to do some things that others can not.

i don't know for sure but I believe since the beginning of the cold war the US has spent more money on our military then the entire net value of EVERYTHING in the US and everything that is owned by US corporations. That is a dizzying sum of money and I don't think it is an amount that most people can wrap their hands around.

I don't know what the real costs of Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, the Bay of Pigs and/or other actions the US has made since World War II were worth it because I don't know what would of happened IF we didn't do these things. Part of the issue is that we spend an Ungodly amount of money to prevent other countries from wanting to go to war, but when they DO go to war and somehow threaten our "security interest" it is almost a given now that we have to do something since we have supposedly the "world police" and we have to go answer a call (at least a call that is in our interest or on our beat) and let the supposedly "bad guys" know that they can't get away with whatever they are doing. It is hard to evaluate what the true cost would be if we were not so "proactive"/aggressive with all the other countries in the world (as well as evaluate the true cost are because we are so aggressive) because we don't know what other world leaders would do IF we were not this way.

It is kind of stupid/messed up that the US is this way, but on the other hand the world is already a screwed up place to being with. Probably the only reason other countries still ally and tolerate our behavior is that sometimes it is better to deal with the devil you know than deal with one you really don't.

China is surrounded by hostile power: Japan, Korea, Taiwan all have considerable US support.

I forgot who said it, but if you look at a map of China, the only way they can expand with least cost to them is precisely towards the South China Sea, but Taiwan is blocking them. And there's the whole re-unification issue, which is sensitive to China.

But I agree, it's too silly to be playing military exercise games. The stakes are too high. — Manuel

That didn't stop the US and former USSR from doing what they did during the cold war. If one has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, isn't an isolationist, BUT DOESN'T want to use their military unless they are up against a much weaker opponent then it really isn't that much different than not having much of a military at all.

What do you think it says if we are ready to go to war in the middle east at the drop of a hat with countries that really DON'T have an army and who can only fight asymmetric wars with us, and then back down (or even be perceived as backing down) when faced when a country that has a conventional that almost rivals our own? It is one thing to be a warmongering country when your a super power but it is another thing to be a warmongering country who is unwilling to stand up to those who are almost on an equal footing than you.

It may be just my opinion, but it seems it would send a message to the world that we are ready to mess up any country who couldn't stand up to us but those that could we are merely as has been superpower no longer who are too cowardly to deal with any REAL potential rival. And that would signal for any potential rivals to the US that we are likely weaker than we once were and that all they need is a military that might give us trouble and they can thumb their noses at us as well.

Almost zero. Both sides have too much to lose. — RogueAI

The same could be said about the US and the former USSR during the Cold war when both sides where were ready to use nukes (or at least more ready to use them than today) if things for some reason went horribly wrong for one of us, but that didn't prevent either side from playing the high-stakes brinkmanship that was played or engaging in proxy wars with sometimes even using US (or USSR if you count Afghanistan) troops.

I think you are also discounting the issue for either the US or for China of the issue of what happens when either side looks impotent when dealing with either any aggression or believed aggression on on the effects that might have. When one is supposedly the big kid on the playground (or in high school) it isn't enough to stand up and fight when one directly challenges you, you have to do something when there is even a rumor that someone wants to start a fight with you. It may sound silly to compare the US and China to the behavior of teenage kids but the mentality one has when one is either a super power or an up and coming superpower isn't all that different -one has to be constantly be beating one's chest, take no lip from others, and act like they are better than everyone else all the time in order to prevent others from thinking they can do the same.

IME, the most efficient "dissolution of pollution" would be a global transition to a (spaceship systems-like) — 180 Proof

I was about to say the same thing but I was thinking of building a space-elevator since sending anything into space with today's technology is both very cost/energy prohibited way of getting anything up there without a space elevator.



Space elevator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Or if that isn't feasible, build a thermal bore hole (again another idea from Alpha Centauri) and stuff any crap we don't want below the crust's surface. Of course there would be an issue with how to transport certain waste to either the space elevator or to a thermal bore hole to get rid of it, but that would be an issue with almost any way we have of getting rid of it.

High and tight. — Manuel

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I think it is likely I agree with it. :)

I don't think it is a given that all these wars we have been fighting in the middle east have been worth it but I also know that the US and her allies have to be pro-active (or perhaps overly pro-active) with nearly ever threat they perceive to exit. We may not have to go so far as to have to try to catch bird in the sky kind of proactive (ie. we don't use valuable resources in places that have little to no security interest to us), but we are DEFINATELY aggressive enough to make countries that really not our allies (as well as some that are) feel.... uncomfortable with our near neo-imperialism enough to sometime believe we are not so much always the good guys but someone that is barely tolerated considering the alternative.

Of course I explain some of the rational in a recent post as to why the US behaves in such a way.

The Taiwan issue is extremely delicate. I fear some mistake could trigger a nuclear war, which is not at all some crazy imagining of mine. — Manuel

The powers that be in China either can't or don't want to look impotent in standing up to the West and the US and her allies are not willing to look the other way for too long with China's posturing for trying to stand up to the US and become a super power on equal footing.

What is it that they say about when an unmovable object meets a irresistible force? IMHO, we are seeing a similar situation play out between the US an China lately.

What are the chances?

None.

China is the largest investor in the US economy. — Shawn

That might be a reason for China to give pause for starting conflict but I'm unsure what kind of issue that would cause for the US.

If someone invest in your country and/or deposits money in some of your banks and then decides to go to war with you, such investment and money is just seized/frozen by the government until a more "friendly" government comes into power and the money can be return. Of course that is "IF" that ever happens. I don't really know what happens to frozen accounts in the US that are never going to be turned over to anyone other than perhaps turn over to some government agency like they do with drug smugglers.

That is what happen to Saddam's bank account in the US as well as any other country that goes to war with us. I'm pretty sure that in other countries they do the same, except that assets are not just frozen but instead turn over to the state or taken by whatever powers that be.

This is of course one of the reasons one has to be careful when buying investment or putting money in banks in countries that are not that friendly with your own, at the drop of a hat they can be taken from you and there is little to nothing you can really do about it.

Depends on how willing America is to fight for what scraps of Empire she can continue to exploit. If the US regime is smart, there will be no hot conflict. If they're morons - and there is little to rule this out - they might be. — StreetlightX

There may not be a "hot" conflict, but it is almost given there is going to be a kind of new "Cold war" between the US and China. And yes as I explained in the above, it is all but a given that US and her allies WILL have to respond to anything they see as aggression just because that is what the US military does.

It does kind of sound stupid that we have to constantly puff up our chest/rattle our sabers every time China or some other country does something we don't like (and the US and her allies often expect THEM to look the other way if WE do something they don't really like), but this is the post WWII world we live in which if you think about it isn't all that different the colonial era that came before it except of course of the problem with so many countries having and able to use nukes if things are not really going their way.

None or very little. — Caldwell

Would you mind explaining your reasoning for this since it is obvious that China seeks to expand it's economic and military power and the US instead wishes to do everything in it's power to limit the ability of any country that is seeking to becoming a country that can rival it?

I already explained how and why the US military and her allies follow something along the lines of the "Hitler doctrine" where they very aggressively (or even over aggressively) seek to hinder the expansion of power of ANY country that might be a threat to them. One might think the US might turn a blind eye to many of China's actions in order to avoid any conflict, but I can assure you that it won't be long before the we start doing "tic for tat" with any and everything China is trying to do, of course that is if we have not already crossed that line.

This is the kind of thinking that lead to Vietnam, Iraq, and all sorts of other disastrous American military actions. Who says we gotta do anything militarily in Taiwan or Ukraine? You and John Bolton I guess. Sometimes you shouldn't do what ya don't gotta do. — T Clark

In many ways I agree with you and believe that the US shouldn't be so willing to go to war with any country just because we can and that we should try to rely more on diplomacy. However there is also a problem with this way of thinking.

In the beginning of World War II, Britain bent over backwards in order to try to make peace with Hitler and the Germans and they failed miserably in such efforts. Also at the time the people in the US were of the mindset that they were not really ready for another world war since the memory of the first world war was still fresh in their minds. Because of this, the Britain and her allies where not ready and able to fight for awhile and it might have cost us the war (or perhaps made it more costly) if we didn't finally change our minds and be willing to accept the cost of going to war and be willing to fight.

Also because of this the US and her allies have created something of along the lines of a "Hitler doctrine". Basically it is a doctrine that states that if we allow any other country (that is against us of course) to start expanding and/or seize power in a country and do nothing while they are doing this that the long term cost when it comes that we have to eventually fight them will be more than if we nip the problem in the bud in the first place. Of course the problem with such thinking is that it makes us vulnerable by constantly having to ready in nearly every area of the world, having to constantly be melding in other countries we hardly have any interest in, as well as almost always be at a state of war some where in the world and making it difficult to be ready to fight in other places because of this constant fighting and the resources/money all these wars cost us.

It should be obvious that following the "Hitler doctrine" does as much or more harm than good since we are constantly have to fight or meddle in countries in which we may not need to, but the one good thing about the doctrine is that it gives anyone that opposes the US and her allies pause when they think of doing anything against us because they know we will react to anything they do. Unfortunately, when other countries also follow something similar to their own "Hitler doctrine" and/or are just really against the US aggressive military behavior it is a given that it sets up us and this other country for an eventual crash course where we will have to settle our differences through either conflict or other means, and as far as I know there are not that many ways to settle such difference other than conflict other than perhaps "proxy wars" where both sides support other countries and let them do most of the fighting.

Also it is ironic that with the "Hitler doctrine" a super power doesn't necessarily win all or even most of the wars they fight. A super power just keep enough countries that "might" go to war or engage in aggressive behavior to think twice about doing it and/or not do as much of it as if they they were unopposed. The tactic is basically to keep any country or Axis of countries from getting too big for us to handle and the hope is by stalling them while trying to get bigger, it will buy us enough time for us to do something before they get to bigger -sort of like in WWII we were able to ramp up military manufacturing before Japan and Germany could become too much of a threat.

Whether you agree with the "Hitler doctrine" or not just realize it is part of the reason that US and her allies are so aggressive as well as willing to "Pre-emptively" strike (ie fight a country before they really attack us or our allies) those who really have no desire to fight the us.

In the final rounds for the election of the president of the US there are always just two parties involve. The democratic and the republican (in random order, though the democratic sprang up in my mind firstly).

Now in Europe there are dozens of parties involved. The biggest delivers the prime minister and his party governs with others if they reach over 75 seats of the 150. Now you could argue that this is in reality or in fact the same. Nevertheless, why are there just two parties in the US? — Inplainsight

Actually we really have just one party in the US and that is the party for cronyism/plutocracy - those that have influence and power watching over for those that also rich and influential. The only difference between the the two is one is just right wing where the other is the looney ultra-right wing.

There only seem to be two parties because the politicians are constantly using brinkman ship to get whatever they want, and the powers that be like the politicians constantly fighting/arguing because it creates a distraction for what they are up to.

Is it worth studying philosophy? — Mayor of Simpleton

An easy answer to to that is to point out that "philosophy" is really just an aspect of critical thinking and for one to ask themselves is it worth it for one to develop critical thinking skills. Or in the words of Socrates (or perhaps Plato, since he was the one who wrote what Socrates "supposedly" said):

"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

It is possible for there to be people out there who don't need to develop critical thinking skills or for them to be ok with living an unexamined life but I'm kind of at a loss at the moment in trying to figure out who these people may be.

I could be wrong but I believe you are a long time member of this forum as well as the old defunct "Philosophy Forums" so of course me trying to point his out to you this is redundant since it is almost a given that it is something you are already aware of. However perhaps someone new to the forum may be less aware of this issue.

BTW, how have you been doing since I last talked to you on the old forum? I liked the video you posted in the OP and will have find me an mp3 version of it to add to my collection :D

You've missed my point (↪180 Proof): sentient synthetics will survive us – to carry 'human intelligence' beyond the extinction of human life. This is what Kafka's quote means to me. — 180 Proof

I apologize since you are right and I started writing my post before I bothered to read your later posts. In my defense all I can say is that there is often so many posts on a thread that I usually don't have time to read all of them before I write a reply to any post I see.

To be honest when I write a post I'm usually like a little school girl waving her fists in the arm wildly in the air while running into a fight, with no idea if I will make contact with my advisory (or friend) because I'm never really sure if I know what the hell I'm talking about. The only thing I usually can count on is the person I'm arguing with knows as little as I do. However I should know better that when I try to debate with you this isn't the case. I just hope you are able understand that this habit is a hard one to break, and because of that I can seem like an idiot from time to time when I post something. :D

“There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us.” ~Franz Kafka — 180 Proof

I'm not sure if that quote is directed to us as human beings individually or the human race as a whole.

What if humans through either evolution and/or augmentation become something OTHER than the kind of human beings you know of that are walking and talking around today? What if somehow scientist are able to create synthetic beings, that are a combination of human/animal biology and today prosthetics and machines that can do some of the work we can (and some that we can't such as space travel) and do it with less problems and less resources that human beings require? Or what about the possibilities that are available if someone is able to create MMI- mind/machine interface technology? Could such technology change us enough for the better so that we are more equipped to deal with our problems than we are today?

I agree with you that human beings are incredibly fallible beings and that the leaders (and wealthy people) running things today are hardly anything more than spoiled rich children that probably more narcissist than any generation before them. But beyond our human fallibility we also can be pretty adaptable beings when we need to be.

I don't know if human evolution (natural or otherwise), augmentation, or any technology will come fast enough to enable us to do what needs to be done when the time comes for us to face the dilemmas we are going to have to face. However I don't think it is a given that we will just snuff ourselves out completely before (or let something else do it) before willing to do something almost radical in the hopes that we survive.

In the past, human beings (as well as other animals) usually have incidents, such as this Cov-Id virus, that hits us and shows us how really unprepared we are for certain threats. Each time we have to deal with a threat, we know a little bit more and become a little wiser. Before the modern era, we were more aware how really powerless we are and perhaps a bit more careful in how we dealt with day to day issues as well as real world problems. Perhaps in the next hundred (or two hundred years) there will be some times where the people in charge will better understand this problem and will be better able to use the resources available to do what needs to be done and the resources available at that time will be a lot better than anything we have today.

I know that saying that there is only a chance we will survive whatever is throw at the human race in the near future, but in reality we have never had anything better than just a chance at survival. If someone thinks that it was a given that the human race was going to do anything/everything we have in history then they are mistaken. We are hardly more than just a candle light burning in a hostile and formidable universe that doesn't give a dam about our existence and since there is no "God" that is going to save us when the cards are down, we are going to find a way to save ourselves (as we always have) since it is a given that nothing - other than perhaps a alien race that is watching us - will do anything to help us.

I guess when that time really comes, we will all see if Kafka was right. Or at least those of us who are still alive when it happens.

I can't not to agree with all that you said.
For technological advancement, biggest problem seems to be insecurity and wealth inequality, there are 200+ countries each seeking security and spending a lot on military, and then also 85% of global wealth is in hands of 12% of the population which only contributes to social instability and government insecurity, ex:
Distribution Of Global Wealth

I don't see what kind of technology could help solve these seemingly unsolvable issues, not even world war or revolution could help. — SpaceDweller

I agree with you that the distribution of wealth is a big problem in our modern time, but you should realize that in almost of human history it has always been a big problem,

Since you are interested in this issue I'll provided you with some links to show you that not only is it as bad as you think but it is even worse:

Motherjones.com - It’s the Inequality, Stupid (and similar articles)
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/07/poor-losers/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/trickle-economy/

Neo-Feudalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-2TEwdRnX0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winners_Take_All:_The_Elite_Charade_of_Changing_the_World

Poor Us: An Animated History of Poverty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxbmjDngois

Why America Throws the Poor in Prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHzLtjR_hdY

The dirty secret of capitalism -- and a new way forward | Nick Hanauer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th3KE_H27bs

Is Capitalism Actually Reducing Poverty? (with Richard Wolff)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co4FES0ehyI

What The Monopoly Man Won’t Tell You
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YOsKyueelI

Not only do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the wealthy also have passed laws that allow them to pay less corporate taxes and the burden of paying taxes is now put on the middle class and working poor; when prior to World War II it was the other way around and the majority of taxes came from corporate taxes. And on top of that they use their money and resources to control politicians and what laws are passes.

In a nutshell, those of us who are not rich are basically little more than wage slave and/or cattle for the super rich and the only reason for existence according to the society we live in is to provide a better life for those who are wealthier than ourselves. If you read or watch the above links I think you will get a better picture of what I'm talking about.

Anyways just so you know, in during massive social upheaval things can change quite a bit. During wars corporations and the wealthy are more willing to pay for things because if they don't there exists the possibility of them losing EVERYTHING. Just look at what happened during the French revolution and/or what happens when any army invades and takes over another country. One of the first things they do is sack (or "liberate" if your the invaders) any centers of wealth and use it for their own purposes.

Even in the corporate world one company can steal another's lunch if they build another product that is much better than their own, and if the company that is losing sales does adapt quick enough they may go out of business. This happens quite a lot in the IT sector where a company seems to hold a sort of monopoly on a piece of hardware or software for a few years and then all of a sudden their products start becoming obsolete such as what happen to a company that use to be called Blackberry.

I guess what I'm trying to say is in the last few hundred years the average person life has changed a lot and under times of great change it isn't the elite 10% or 1% that control everything because under rapid change even the elite can't control anything. In fact if you really look at things the wealthy elite can only make it look like they are in control and if at any time the masses don't agree with what they are doing (or world events happen so quickly it disrupts their control), then they no longer maintain the wealth and power that they did and instead become like the rest of us.

What is Technological ascendancy?

By "Technological ascendancy" I mean a point where no new discoveries would be significant enough compared to existing technological discoveries and possibilities of practical application.

Technological ascendancy may (but is not required) to solve several of the great questions such as theory of everything and possibly rule out some of the great questions as meaningless such as theory of simulation or why is there something rather than nothing, given the scientific tipping point.

Technological ascendancy also solves all of the problems that we face, hunger, needing to go to work, illness etc. in other words people live in utopic world where all major problems are solved and handled by technology with minimum effort. — SpaceDweller

Advance technology may improve certain aspects of our lives but it won't solve all of our problems because as we advance such technology will create new issue, or make us have to address issues that we never did before. The very least of these will be the logistical issues on how to maintain such a technological society and how to best allocate the resources that are made available from it because even in advance civilizations there will be a limit to what resources can be produced and used and there will be an unlimited demand on such limited resources.

Or in other words whatever advance society comes after this post-industrial age (and likely also the one after that), there will be a strain on what the populace demands of it. This might end in several hundred years or maybe it might take thousands but what such a society will look like we do not really know.

Question
Stephen Hawking for example also pointed out both the possible issues of the AI and the need to colonize outer space.
Do you think these issues are solvable, and is technological ascendancy possible? or are we doomed to suffer and ultimately die out? — SpaceDweller

Your question reminds me of a video game that came out in the 90s called "Alpha Centauri" where humans are trying to colonize another world and deal with other factions who have different ideologies of their own.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Alpha_Centauri#Inspirations

Whether or not the technological issues needed for the kind of technological advances described in the game Alpha Centauri or what you call " technological ascendancy" are possible remains to be seen as from what I have seen in my life the time and resources required for any advancement such as AI) are usually much more than we initially envision. As to whether or not society will be able to adapt and use such technology before there is a global catastrophe either caused by nature or by us is also a question that isn't easy to answer since there more variables to such a question that it is unlikely anyone reading this could factor them all together well enough for a accurate answer to it.

IMHO, man kind will have to either become more efficient and/or creative to affectively deal with the issues to move on from our current post-industrial age society to one where the technology allows us to extend our reach much farther then our current one. What will be required for this to happen (ie war, climate change, civil unrest, etc.) I don't know but it is likely it will take quite some time unless there is something to motivate both people and the powers that be that something needs to be done so that we don't remain just as we are.

In the past, I believe most technological and social change happen in a culture when A)they encounter a civilization more advance then them and they have to adapt to existence of such people and their technology B) they are at war and in order to win the war (or in some cases there is a period of several wars) they have to research new technologies/sciences to give them a edge. There may be other conditions where there is some kind of threat that isn't all that different then war (possibly like during the age of colonization where European countries set out to explore/subdue other countries in order to obtain wealth), but in a nutshell it usually requires those that are hording wealth to be scared enough to be willing to spend a large amount of it to save themselves and the rest of their wealth as well as people willing to drastically change their lifestyle in order for them to survive. If there was ever something like an alien encounter/invasion, it would definitely fit the bill for something to motivate everyone to do whatever it takes to ramp up whatever is needed for us to become a more technologically advance society.

Is social media making society more mentally ill?

Are there more mental illness now vs. before Social media was discovered?

Such examples as....

* Anxiety and Depression

* Fake News and how it is normalizing, paranoia and delusional thinking.

* Division in our Society - promoting prejudice thinking

* Creating a culture of wanting to be right

* How Social Media can distort our cognitive perspective because of algorithms — TheQuestion

I guess that social media CAN make people more mentally ill, but i would guess that just about any form of media or propaganda that came before it is as or almost as capable of causing just as much damage. I'm also guessing that part of the problems is that some people reading stuff on social media don't realize that anything there has as much validity to it as what people write in a bathroom stall.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that the issue itself may not be with social media itself, but with the way it is used and with the way our society is today. Social Media is merely a tool and like all tools created before it (like books, newspapers, movies, television, etc.), it can help or harm depending on what people want to do with it and whether or not such actions can harm others.

IMHO if the issues with social media is more of a symptom of a problem (ie since social media is a tool used in causing harm not the source itself) not the problem itself the better question to ask, what (or who) is real source of the harm or problems that are caused using social media and can anything be done about it.

Why this disconnect between the philosophy and practices of torture? Does torture reveal an essential flaw in philosophizing, its hypocrisy, or is philosophical thinking simply incapable of altering the human propensity for accepting violation by pain no matter what its reasoning consists in? — Enrique

This " disconnect between the philosophy and practices of torture" as you call it only exist if you discount the problem of the human condition. We exist in a flawed world and are flawed beings, the philosophy of ethics is merely theory on what we can or should do under mostly ideal circumstances, but even under ideal circumstances it is debatable as to what we should do.

When one claims torture is evil it is mostly an appeal to emotion fallacy since nobody wants to be tortured and it is all but a given that one believes that it would be evil for anyone to torture them much like it would be if someone murdered and robbed them. However people really don't think it is evil for themselves to torture or kill/rob someone if they had to do so in order to survive and/or protect those that they love such as family.

For example, most people in this world have no problem eating meat in order to stay alive. We raise the animals and them slaughter them in order to sustain our existence. Humans beings do this practically every day as almost as part of some ritual were we kill animals in order to rob them of the meat from their bodies (since they don't have anything else really to give us) and because we need food and the animals can't give us any resistance to us doing so, it is merely has become a simple process that we do and don't really think of it as evil when we do it. While we may not really torture the animals when we slaughter them, I'm pretty sure if the animals had some kind of sentience into their own condition it would almost no lesser of a evil of what we do to them than if we did torture them in the end.

In much the same way our society our society divides us into those that "have" and those that "have not" and when someone from the have nots is unhappy (or unhappy for any reason) and breaks societies rules then they are punished in was that are not all that different than torture. In many ways the laws of society are not really there to protect as much as to protect the status quo. Again if one is happy with the status quo then they have trouble seeing the evil that has to be done in order to protect it.

Read the following quote that has been attributed to George Orwell:

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf". - George Orwell

And ask yourself where does the line between good and evil start where one is protecting themselves and doing what needs to be done to protect themselves and where they are using excess force against other? Also ask yourself if this line is in the same place all the time or is it pliable due to the various environments one may be in.