Comments on: VIDEO: Echoes of WWI: China, the US, and the Next "Great" War https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/ because facts really should be sacred Sun, 05 May 2019 17:51:17 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: iusedtopost@thegaurdian https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40447 Sun, 05 Nov 2017 04:49:02 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40447 In reply to Big B.

OBOR energy requirements/
I read somewhere that China is now a world leader in these things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

]]> By: iusedtopost@thegaurdian https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40446 Sun, 05 Nov 2017 04:42:01 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40446 In reply to AJ.

“Clear superiority”?
This is a misnomer that is constantly repeated by the MSM.
Fully 61% of American cruise missiles failed to hit their target in the attack on Syria by Trump.
China will win any conventional war with America in the South China Sea. The USN has no reply to the mach 6 missiles and S-300/400 derivatives possessed by China.
Nuclear? Then the exceptional ones will disappear as vitrified rock into the dust bin of history.
Just an opinion 🙂

]]> By: AJ https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40445 Thu, 26 Oct 2017 12:44:42 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40445 Unless the U.S. use nuclear weapons, which would be suicidal, despite their clear superiority in terms weapons and technology, their ability, effectiveness and motivation to ‘fight’ is very low compared to China or Russia. The term ‘body-bags’ comes to mind.

]]> By: Vaska https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40444 Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:30:20 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40444 In reply to rehmat1.

China a colonial empire? Could you elaborate on that, please?

]]> By: rehmat1 https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40443 Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:20:20 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40443 Both United States and China are colonial empires. The world has always suffered from the military adventures of the imperialist powers. Both World Wars fought by European and Russians but the coming WWIII would be fought in the Middle East to protect Israel which is darling of all world powers; the US, UK, China, Russia, France and Germany.
In July 2017, US vice-Admiral H. Scott Swift, said that he will launch a nuclear attack next week if ordered by US president Donald Trump.
https://rehmat1.com/2017/07/28/us-admiral-is-ready-to-nuke-china/

]]> By: Big B https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40442 Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:47:43 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40442 President Xi Jinping has recently laid out his ambitious vision for Chinese (and World) development in the 21st century: a hundred year plan to raise the living standards of 70% of the world’s population. This is to be achieved by non-interventionist; non-imperial trade and development means: a laudable plan indeed (especially in contrast with the US Imperium militaristic GWOT conquest and terror and plan): but is it practical???
In the same period: China is entering into a net energy crisis – with (combined conventional and unconventional) domestic oil set to peak in 2018. Not a problem: they’ll just import more oil to top up the shortfall? Fine, in a non-finite world: but conventional oil production has plateaued since 2005 (120% of the increase in oil production over the period has been from unconventional sources) – so the replacement oil is not of the same quality. That creates a deferred net energy crisis (due to a deteriorating EROI) – either in China, or elsewhere (more than likely in non-OECD countries – the very ones China wants to develop the economies of.) This problem will compound over time: so the development of China’s GDP will effectively act as a break on other OECD and non-OECD economies – as China requires a bigger and bigger slice of the world’s finite (energy) resources to maintain the momentum of its growth. And the Chinese economy will need to be 16x larger than present by the end of the century – in order to meet their objectives.
[And technological efficiency and improvement INCREASE; not decrease, resource depletion – the Jevons Paradox. Solar powered OBOR? If resources are directed toward a post-carbon infrastructure – where do the resources for OBOR itself (and the high-end goods they intend to export along the various routes) come from? Let alone the increasing resources the developing countries will need to create the economic growth to pay back the capital investment: plus discretionary income to buy the imported goods??? There’s no such thing as a biophysical free lunch.]
Then there is the debt (currently 254% of GDP – set to be 300% by 2030.) China cannot fund this alone – but with the scale of investments already made – neither can they afford for it to fail. They have created an existential need to keep growing their economy, acquiring more and more high quality energetic and other raw material resources – indefinitely and exponentially. Otherwise their non-performing debt (from their own internal infrastructure expansion – think Ghost Cities) will become an increasing drag on GDP – and on the other countries that become involved in the project???
So, even in a vacuum – China exporting its over-capacity in infrastructure; in a debt-funded, large infrastructure led, carbon-intensive, resource depleting programme of development doesn’t seem particularly geoeconomically sound? [Let alone ecologically – did I mention China’s environmental record?] Then when you factor in America wanting to maintain its political and economic hegemony: as well as all the other OECD and non-OECD countries competing to maintain and grow their shares of our depleting resources – the combined competitive ‘business as usual’ growth strategies of our developed nations point to increased conflict – and the increased likelihood of war – conventional or thermonuclear. The alternatives are not very appealing either: environmental catastrophe (already upon us); economic collapse (localised or endemic); or, worst case scenario – if we direct all our remaining resources toward competition and conflict – and not cooperation and transition – civilisational collapse (due to over-investment in complexity and collapse of available excess net energy.)
What chance the world’s leaders sit down and enter into a universal détente – and work things out for the benefit of humanity? No, I’m not confident either.

]]> By: Big B https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40441 Sun, 22 Oct 2017 18:27:18 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40441 In reply to bevin.

@Bevin: I’m not sure you understand the basic tenets of the historical dialectic; especially if you think that communism was an autonomous self-determined independent and viable alternative to capitalism? There were not two separate hemispheric COMINTERN and capitalist blocs that did not interact. They existed and encroached within a holistic interactive complex adaptive system. What one did heavily impacted upon and determined the response of the other: a mutual co-dependence and (sub-optimal) parallel development. They had a shared dynamism, competitive determinism – each drove the other (particularly in foreign policy; and technological ‘advancement’ toward confrontation and war) – and as such, they were as much complementary as contradictory and antagonistic.
Especially if you consider that communism was organised financed from Kerensky on; got much of its investment and development capital from Western capitalist bankers (such as John D Rockefeller, John D Ryan of the National City Bank, J.P. Morgan and George W Perkins); and much of its technical and industrial capability through ‘lend lease’ and ‘peaceful’ trade – organised and provided by Western industrial capitalists (such as Armand Hammer and Henry Ford – who, for instance, built the Soviet Gorki plant.) Later technological assistance was provided by the likes of Henry Kissinger (who allowed specialist grinders to be passed to the Soviets that allowed them to MIRV their missiles and pinpoint target US installations): so much for independence and “serious alternative”? More like adversarially joined at the hip???

]]> By: Jake O https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40440 Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:42:08 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40440 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5002382/A-bitter-China-marching-global-domination.html
The Daily Max beats the drum

]]> By: vexarb https://off-guardian.org/2017/10/21/video-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/#comment-40439 Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:50:25 +0000 http://off-guardian.org/?p=41910#comment-40439 Typical Economist trash: heaps a pile of junk verbiage to conceal the ugly facts of The Western War of Terror which, starting ca.1980 and still ongoing at present, successively destroyed and/or destabilized YugoSlavia, Iraq, Sudan,Somalia, Libya, Ukraine, Syria — and is now “pivoting” to do likewise to East Eurasia (as though the West had not caused terror enough by 3 million dead in Korea, another 3 million in Vietnam, and yet another 3 million in Indonesia). Bland words disguise the Clintons as failed peacemakers inste’d of being Lord and Lady Macbeth of Arkansaw. ….etc etc. This Economist’s History of WW3 is as fictional as an Oxford professor’s History of WW1.
“But what will History say?”
“History, sir, will tell lies as usual”.

]]>