World War 3?

[Ov3rmind]

Those leftists would see what a real mess looks like for once...

WWII was a pretty big mess, and I'd say American leftists pwned pretty hard in that war.

[Jakedubbleya]

,,,,,,,

Yes

,,,,,,,

So, because of the lack of health coverage the middle class is getting poorer on average?

......

Well....Wait, i agree with you.

1. So what, you dont believe in the republic we have? You think companies shouldc directly influence our governments actions even though in many cases our loss is their gain?

2. No, because of the lack of health coverage we have insane hobos on every corner (who dont deserve to be there). There are many, more economical reasons that the middle class is dwindling such as decreased pay and increased prices.

3. Sweet

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Before Germany invaded Russia in World War II, they were number 1 trade partners. Japan and the USA traded extensively before Pearl Harbor happened too. A lot of countires depend on the USA as a consumer nation, but if demand is cut (such as in a war), there are always other customers. Granted it won't be a large market such as the USA, but there are always others in the world that will pick up the slack. There are numerous examples of how countries killed the goose that was laying the golden egg for them.

If (ONCE AGAIN EXTREMELY UNLIKELY) war breaks out between the USA/Japan and China, it will be a war fought in Asia, not a war of survival. If Americans were not willing to support the stop of Communism in a country in Asia, why do you think they would support a war based on ethnic hate and the lack of an apology from both sides? The first time a large number of US Troops are killed, public support will wane.

Those are both good points. And before Russia, in 1939 France was Germany's largest trading partner. Two more things to consider, and why I ignored that historical example.
What is the make up of the two-way trade? Is another market available that can provide the same goods? What is the intended outcome of the war?

Germany's trade with France in 1939 was probably pretty even in terms of technology and value. Their trade with Russia would have been largely resource-based. Russian resources for German manufactured good and food. There was no serious economic threat to a war with France, and by 1941 they had secured alternate resources of teh types they got from Russia, and coudl expect to use up internally the agricultural and manufacturing capacity they would not be selling to the Russians. Also, in both cases the German intention was to conquer and rule the former trade partner, which would have allowed them to restart the trade after fighting was over.

China and the USA/Japan trade Chinese cheap goods for technology and food. the Chinese cannot internally substitute the way the Germans couild in 1939, and they can't reasonably expect to capture the resources the way Germany hoped to (and almost did) in 1941.

On the matter of Americans' support for an Asian war, you are right. But I did say "if".

[coolcatpete]

China would dominnate japan x10

-pete

[Jeffy-CanCon]

In the real world, china is not idiotic enough to attack anybody in the near future, period, there would be absolutely no forseeable gain.

Actually, there is some thinkingthat they might attack Taiwan. It's do-able, according to military analysts. The Taiwanese could not hold out long enough for US help to arrive. Taiwan represents both an ideological and an economic threat to mainland China. Conquering it will give them control over the healthy Taiwanese economy (taxes!), and allow them to divert Taiwan-aimed investment to themainland. It will also serve to keep their own unruly capitalists in line.

Africa will also be developed by that time but because of our isolationist nature as compared to the aggresive nature of the chinese our ties to that development would have been minimal, bringing a 3/4 chinese sympathetic continent into the picture. Europe will remain an artifact, beautifull but no real power. South america will be our only new asset since the people of that region will have developed a strong appreciation for american/european ideals if they hadnt already.

While this might be true, and I hope for the African's sake it is, I doubt it. Capitalism still drives the world economy, and capitalism requires a certain amount of poverty. Nobody with money wants the Third World to become developed. Higher wages and resource prices would threaten corporate profits.

Theres just one factor that probably isnt much of a factor but who knows. australia (migh tdevelop a lot of ties in africa).
...

The Australians are pretty firmly on the American side, and probably always will be. Linguistic and cultural ties are no guarantee, but 60 years of military & intelligence cooperation is a good indicator. Also, both nations look to the Pacific Rim for their future economy, so economic ties will probably grow, despite the recent breakdown in trade talks. The Aussies don't look much towards Africa, that I am aware of.

[Athius]

I hope it never happens because since my country, Puerto Rico, is a US colony and therefore we have the american citizenship we are always the first to be drafted to go to war. And i will never ever fight for the US because of their BS wars have nothing to do with me.

Don't tell me that freedom BS because im a colonist and im not free and don't tell me that it is to protect democracy because democracy doesn't work and will never work.

BTW i have the US citizenship not because i wanted it it was because it was given to me with no other choice.

I dont hate the US but i hate the idea of being a colonist, having a citizenship that it is not mine and fighting a war that doesn't has to do anything with me.

[Jakedubbleya]

Actually, there is some thinkingthat they might attack Taiwan. It's do-able, according to military analysts. The Taiwanese could not hold out long enough for US help to arrive. Taiwan represents both an ideological and an economic threat to mainland China. Conquering it will give them control over the healthy Taiwanese economy (taxes!), and allow them to divert Taiwan-aimed investment to themainland. It will also serve to keep their own unruly capitalists in line.




While this might be true, and I hope for the African's sake it is, I doubt it. Capitalism still drives the world economy, and capitalism requires a certain amount of poverty. Nobody with money wants the Third World to become developed. Higher wages and resource prices would threaten corporate profits.



The Australians are pretty firmly on the American side, and probably always will be. Linguistic and cultural ties are no guarantee, but 60 years of military & intelligence cooperation is a good indicator. Also, both nations look to the Pacific Rim for their future economy, so economic ties will probably grow, despite the recent breakdown in trade talks. The Aussies don't look much towards Africa, that I am aware of.

1. other countries wouldnt stand for it imo, even if it didnt cause a war it would cause them a lot more problems than gains.

2.Capitolism depends on the poor that produce, africa does not produce, a lot of economical gain would result from africa becoming a producing continent (much how china used to be and still is).

3. i meant as an american ally thus perhaps disrupting chances of chinas take-over. I can see the australian economy growing, much mroe than europes, thus giving them opportunities to help develop africa.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

1. other countries wouldnt stand for it imo, even if it didnt cause a war it would cause them a lot more problems than gains.

2.Capitolism depends on the poor that produce, africa does not produce, a lot of economical gain would result from africa becoming a producing continent (much how china used to be and still is).

3. i meant as an american ally thus perhaps disrupting chances of chinas take-over. I can see the australian economy growing, much mroe than europes, thus giving them opportunities to help develop africa.

1) Nobody is willing to make any sacrifice for Taiwan. That's why nearly every country on Earth does not recognize them as an independant nation, and goes along with the Chinese fiction that they are a renegade province. They are a democracy, and a trading partner of all the democracies, but we ignore their de facto independence.

2) A lot of Africa is an economic basket case, but not all of it. Even those countries that DO produce and trade significantly with the West (Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Sudan, etc) are still dirt-poor after decades of post-colonial trade.

3) That's possible, but given their current economic focus, I don't think it is likely. Africa's foreign trade will probably still be dominated by the Europeans for another century.

[Jakedubbleya]

1.I cant wait to get my "Free Taiwan" bumper sticker.

2. Not much to say abotu that, just that africa hasnt come even close to its economical capabilities, with the exception fo south africa.

3. Good argument, but i disagree. Like i said before, this is a pretty speculative factor.

[SlartyBartFast]

I think it's safe to say that World War 3 would be the end of America.

That's actually a pretty fair statement. It would follow the historical record of world wars.

Each of the previous wars changed the dominant world powers.

[SlartyBartFast]

If it turns into a world war china is going to lose. All of western europe, north america, and japan vs china, india, and russia? China, India, and Russia all lack the capaital to fight with technology on their side. The day the war starts we win.

Really? Guess the Vietnamesse had hidden technology and resources then? How about the Chechnyans against Russia? Or in WWII the Germans against Russia?

The upper hand in technology and resources is NOT always the deciding factor.

If the war is on their turf, the Western nations don't have the capital to wage war for long against them.

How many hundreds of billions is the war against the dinky little force that was Saddam Hussein costing the US? Does the US have the resources to fight something hundreds of times greater than that?

[Jeffy-CanCon]

That's actually a pretty fair statement. It would follow the historical record of world wars.

Each of the previous wars changed the dominant world powers.

I disagree. Each of the major wars among the great powers in the last 200 years has resulted in a realignment, and a change in their relative rankings, but the players have mostly remained the same. The primary factors are not changed much by these wars. The countries still have basically the same resources, and the same levels of technology. Todays "G8" is basically the same list you would have written 100 years ago.

1905 Great Powers
UK
France
USA
Italy
Germany
Russia
Turkey
Austria-Hungary
Japan

2005 G8
UK
France
USA
Italy
Germany
Russia
Japan
Canada (doesn't really deserve to still be included)

+ China
+ India

[SCpoloRicker]

Canada (doesn't really deserve to still be included)

HERESY!!

re:Taiwan
I've read several well-thought out looks at how a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan would play out. It was a common topic on fark a few months ago.

My take from all that is; China most likely can't conduct an amphibious invasion, because they lack the ships. They could drop paratroops, cut C&C, and eventually bring troops over to stabilize. This scenario, the U.S. & Co. stay out, for lack of prep.

However, I doubt they would go for it. No really convinving argument to force the issue. Most of Taiwan accepts that Chinese rule, and it wouldn't be in Beijings interest to screw with the flow of money from Taiwan.

India-Pakistan would be some good fireworks.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

And you know, I consider myself something of a nationalist?

The Chinese have been investing a lot in boats for the PLA Navy, and practicing amphibious operations. But I read a good article in the Asia Times Online recently that suggested they are leaning towards exactly the sort of airborne operation you suggest.

Invading Taiwan doesn't seem to make sense to you and I, but who can say what goes on in the minds of the Chinese Politburo? There are several possible reasons they might consider it (some I mentioned in an earlier post), and the near-certainty of a quick victory is a big enticement.

[1stdeadeye]

I hope it never happens because since my country, Puerto Rico, is a US colony and therefore we have the american citizenship we are always the first to be drafted to go to war. And i will never ever fight for the US because of their BS wars have nothing to do with me.

Don't tell me that freedom BS because im a colonist and im not free and don't tell me that it is to protect democracy because democracy doesn't work and will never work.

BTW i have the US citizenship not because i wanted it it was because it was given to me with no other choice.

I dont hate the US but i hate the idea of being a colonist, having a citizenship that it is not mine and fighting a war that doesn't has to do anything with me.

Goodbye!!!

See ya!

Puerto Rico can go as far as I am concerned. Your "colony" is a drain onour country. You get far more federal $ then you generate.

Wonder why PR never voted for independence? $$$