Pew Poll: 90% of U.S. believes China is threat.

[0R0 + 6,251]

37 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

IMO, one of the issues with our current onshoring debate is the call to bring all the jobs back inside US boarders. If we viewed the whole of North America as a single economic block we'd be better off strategy wise. We should be building up North America as a whole maximally integrated economic empire. With the resource/innovation base of Canada and the USA along with cheap labor in Mexico combined you come up with an unbeatable combination China (or anyone else) is hopeless to compete with. If companies had not switched from cheap Mexican labor to cheap Chinese labor and kept integrating the North American economy together imagine how much stronger the US position would be today. 

Generally agree on the NAFTA focus. It is not mutually exclusive with US onshoring. Integration is something Trump is coming onboard with. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I am thinking about an economic war. The size of an economy determines whether it can wage any kind of war. War is not the correct word. Power struggle, 

 

Power is the greatest objective motive in human nature and the nations they build. Benjamin Franklin wanted a turkey as our national symbol. He lost to those who wanted an eagle. Many great Western nations have chosen the eagle as their symbol. Interestingly though, the African eagle is the largest. 

Unfortunately IMO, the globalists have snatched the idea of cooperation of nations away from those who want their own nation to be free from dictates from anyone other than God above. The globalists want to be the gods themselves. China wants to run the United Nations with allied nations thus be the globalist superpower. 

Ron, I think ur passion for using more NG in US transport system makes a lot of sense. Hope ur pollies are listening!0

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I am thinking about an economic war. The size of an economy determines whether it can wage any kind of war. War is not the correct word. Power struggle, 

 

Power is the greatest objective motive in human nature and the nations they build. Benjamin Franklin wanted a turkey as our national symbol. He lost to those who wanted an eagle. Many great Western nations have chosen the eagle as their symbol. Interestingly though, the African eagle is the largest. 

Unfortunately IMO, the globalists have snatched the idea of cooperation of nations away from those who want their own nation to be free from dictates from anyone other than God above. The globalists want to be the gods themselves. China wants to run the United Nations with allied nations thus be the globalist superpower. 

The gross size of an economy doesn't determine the ability to wage/win wars. It's the 'net excess' an economy produces that determines war-making/winning ability. The Chinese and Russians had the world's biggest economies for almost the entire 1700-1800's but they got their asses handed to them time and again by smaller (economically and population) powers. The British didn't become a world power due to having the largest economy or population in the world. What they did have is more excess (net) power than anybody else due to productivity, organization and innovation.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

7 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Sorry, @Old-Ruffneck, this statement kinda threw me.  China is a nuclear power in their own right.  Don't they have the power to counter-strike?  Educate me, my friend.

Don't think their nuclear yield is anywhere near ours or the Soviets. Counterstrike would do damage but not decimate this continent. I will find the link for China's actual nuclear capacity. Saw it other day and was surprisingly lower than what I thought.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

No need for nukes, ballistic missiles or engineered bioweapons. If China wanted to inflict huge damage on the US they could simply stop exporting antibiotics and active pharmaceutical ingredients to the US.

The United States is heavily dependent on China for pharmaceutical and medical supplies, including an estimated 97% of all antibiotics and 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients needed to produce drugs in the United States.

US and China can't go to war. They are too interdependent.

 

 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

1 hour ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

The gross size of an economy doesn't determine the ability to wage/win wars. It's the 'net excess' an economy produces that determines war-making/winning ability. The Chinese and Russians had the world's biggest economies for almost the entire 1700-1800's but they got their asses handed to them time and again by smaller (economically and population) powers. The British didn't become a world power due to having the largest economy or population in the world. What they did have is more excess (net) power than anybody else due to productivity, organization and innovation.

And that very brief weird piece of world history has ended.  There is very little basic science left to leverage for enormous advantages in power around the world.

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

2 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And that very brief weird piece of world history has ended.  There is very little basic science left to leverage for enormous advantages in power around the world.

How has net vs gross ended? Do you know what that means?

[Hotone + 412]

10 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

No need for nukes, ballistic missiles or engineered bioweapons. If China wanted to inflict huge damage on the US they could simply stop exporting antibiotics and active pharmaceutical ingredients to the US.

The United States is heavily dependent on China for pharmaceutical and medical supplies, including an estimated 97% of all antibiotics and 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients needed to produce drugs in the United States.

US and China can't go to war. They are too interdependent.

Or stop rare earths. Or just about everything Americans use. In retaliation, the US can stop exporting US dollars to China

Edited April 23, 2020 by Hotone

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

2 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Don't think their nuclear yield is anywhere near ours or the Soviets. Counterstrike would do damage but not decimate this continent. I will find the link for China's actual nuclear capacity. Saw it other day and was surprisingly lower than what I thought.

@Dan Warnick

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-with-nuclear-weapons/

• Russia, 6,850 nuclear warheads
• The United States of America, 6,185 nuclear warheads
• France, 300 nuclear warheads
• China, 280 nuclear warheads <------------------------------------ now to figure out if fusion or fission and payload.
• The United Kingdom, 215 nuclear warheads
• Pakistan, 145 nuclear warheads
• India, 135 nuclear warheads
• Israel, 80 nuclear warheads
• North Korea, 15 nuclear warheads

Edited April 23, 2020 by Old-Ruffneck
add

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

32 minutes ago, Hotone said:

Or stop rare earths. Or just about everything Americans use. In retaliation, the US can stop exporting US dollars to China

It really isn't hard to replace anything you have listed. It would just take a few months, elbow grease and some financing. There is very little that comes from China that the US or any other country can't replace in relatively short time frames (the opposite isn't true however). A few things about 'made in China' that people over look is that it's all really just 'assembled in China'. Somewhere around 50% of the dollar value of products shipped to the US we think of as 'made in China' is actually 'made in the USA' either by actual components used or design work etc.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

That'll be 2 wastelands then

Thank God we're in the middle

Oh wait.....

Depends which way they are launched knothead!😂

I’m guessing the missiles will cross paths over the Pacific....not over Europe. Just a guess though.

[Hotone + 412]

2 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

It really isn't hard to replace anything you have listed. It would just take a few months, elbow grease and some financing. There is very little that comes from China that the US or any other country can't replace in relatively short time frames (the opposite isn't true however). A few things about 'made in China' that people over look is that it's all really just 'assembled in China'. Somewhere around 50% of the dollar value of products shipped to the US we think of as 'made in China' is actually 'made in the USA' either by actual components used or design work etc.

Just do it, move your manufacturing if it makes the US happy and that would be great.  Just don't agitate for war.  This Covid19 is enough suffering for many people (lockdown, wealth destruction and lots of income), war is the last thing we need.  

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

3 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

How has net vs gross ended? Do you know what that means?

Lets see, fighting illiterate savages with a tiny upper class who are science illiterates vrs non illiterate savages who know what science is....  Gosh golly gee, what is the difference...🙄

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

32 minutes ago, Hotone said:

Just do it, move your manufacturing if it makes the US happy and that would be great.  Just don't agitate for war.  This Covid19 is enough suffering for many people (lockdown, wealth destruction and lots of income), war is the last thing we need.  

....but don’t thermonuclear detonations kill COVID-19? It’s all over in a flash (pun intended) and much less traumatic than this non-sensical extended lockdown. 😂

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

25 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

....but don’t thermonuclear detonations kill COVID-19? It’s all over in a flash (pun intended) and much less traumatic than this non-sensical extended lockdown. 😂

Do it for the kids....

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Do it for the kids....

Do what? I don’t have any kids, in any case.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Douglas Buckland
Hhh

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

1 hour ago, Hotone said:

Just do it, move your manufacturing if it makes the US happy and that would be great.  Just don't agitate for war.  This Covid19 is enough suffering for many people (lockdown, wealth destruction and lots of income), war is the last thing we need.  

How is the US agitating for war? If it's China thats in regards to, the CCP is the ones ramming fishing vessels and any other boats they feel like in the SCS. Along with ignoring treaties (Law of the Sea) the CCP signed that guaranteed soverign ocean rights of every nation on earth that they now completely ignore. Not to mention agitating for war against Taiwan also non-stop. If your referring to Iran, they've been attacking the US endlessly for years. For a simple refresher please search Kobar Tower Bombings.  Oh yeah, I forgot the US is supposed to just get attacked over and do nothin about it.

 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

42 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lets see, fighting illiterate savages with a tiny upper class who are science illiterates vrs non illiterate savages who know what science is....  Gosh golly gee, what is the difference...🙄

Ok, so you have no idea what net power means.

[0R0 + 6,251]

3 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

No need for nukes, ballistic missiles or engineered bioweapons. If China wanted to inflict huge damage on the US they could simply stop exporting antibiotics and active pharmaceutical ingredients to the US.

The United States is heavily dependent on China for pharmaceutical and medical supplies, including an estimated 97% of all antibiotics and 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients needed to produce drugs in the United States.

US and China can't go to war. They are too interdependent.

That is for now. That is not going to remain so.

But the regulators need to lay off and stop thinking of the industries as pin cushions for regulations and a source of revenue through fines. The regulators are not there to prevent industry but to prevent excess damage. If they have the industry's presence defined as the target for avoidance then we are better off without the regulatory agencies at all. 

We are likely to have Trump successfully steamroll a US and NAFTA reindustrialization to shut out China from critical supply chains. The entirety of the active pharmaceutical ingredient industry will be provided Federal support and protection against the regulatory and local gnats that tend to shut down industrial development efforts. 

We suddenly see a huge swath of unemployed people who would be willing to move out of dense cities to work in industry controlling and feeding the machines to make "stuff" again. Where they can raise families at decent low cost of living and low cost real estate. 

China will have to figure out how to maneuver out from the government's dependency on the real estate bubble to fund itself, and shift consumption out of cash incomes less so than savings so that the loss of export revenues does not turn into a wave of long term unemployment.

[0R0 + 6,251]

4 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

4 hours ago, Hotone said:

Or stop rare earths. Or just about everything Americans use. In retaliation, the US can stop exporting US dollars to China

It really isn't hard to replace anything you have listed. It would just take a few months, elbow grease and some financing. There is very little that comes from China that the US or any other country can't replace in relatively short time frames (the opposite isn't true however). A few things about 'made in China' that people over look is that it's all really just 'assembled in China'. Somewhere around 50% of the dollar value of products shipped to the US we think of as 'made in China' is actually 'made in the USA' either by actual components used or design work etc.

That is the issue of China's economy. Much of it is razor thin margins where the local value added is a narrow slice. More money is made out of producing in China at the suppliers and importers than in China itself. 

When they "go up the value chain" they actually destroy the "value" part of the chain and simply produce more stuff and wonder why they can't get the prices that the original equipment manufacturer they ripped off had made. 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

2 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

That is the issue of China's economy. Much of it is razor thin margins where the local value added is a narrow slice. More money is made out of producing in China at the suppliers and importers than in China itself. 

When they "go up the value chain" they actually destroy the "value" part of the chain and simply produce more stuff and wonder why they can't get the prices that the original equipment manufacturer they ripped off had made. 

YES!!!!! Hallelujah! I'd up vote you 10 times over if I could.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Strangelovesurfing
additions

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Depends which way they are launched knothead!😂

I’m guessing the missiles will cross paths over the Pacific....not over Europe. Just a guess though.

You mean Rob/G.B. are not the center of the universe?  Next you'll be trying to debunk flat-earth worship!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

11 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

You mean Rob/G.B. are not the center of the universe?  Next you'll be trying to debunk flat-earth worship!

For a Brit, Rob seems to be more ‘geographically challenged’ than your standard ex-European. This is usually a failing attributed to us lowly Yanks.😂

What? You telling me the Earth ain’t flat no more!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, Hotone said:

Just do it, move your manufacturing if it makes the US happy and that would be great.  Just don't agitate for war.  This Covid19 is enough suffering for many people (lockdown, wealth destruction and lots of income), war is the last thing we need.  

Wow!  I agree with you for once.  I don't know how this conversation about war began.  Oh, wait a minute, now I do.  I remember I couldn't understand why 0R0 was encouraging it.  Morbid curiosity?  

Anyway, NOBODY is going to launch, IMHO.  To achieve ANY of the stated goals, a nuclear conflict would not produce the desired results, full stop as they say.  People forget how relatively new to the game, the entire international game, China is.  Deng Xiaoping only initiated an open door policy back in 1978 and it took them a few years before they could even buy commercial aircraft capable of safe flight to a few cities in the West.  For another 20+ years after that the Chinese people couldn't travel freely and foreigners, in most cases, had to have an invitation to get in to start doing business.  I started a 9 year stint there in 1990 and the airlines and cities were still fledgeling and cities weren't even connected by road, or even rail in many cases.  Anyway, one of the main reasons for Deng Xiaoping to press for opening up is because China was still, after 4-6 decades, struggling to feed her people.  Unfortunately, there wasn't much arable land left at that time and it has only gotten worse since.

China screwed up on a massive scale with this virus and to a lesser degree with ones in the past.  But I still (want to) believe they did not do it on purpose.   Nuclear war might erase a few hundred million of their "mouths to feed", but it would put the CCP out of business and split China back up into fiefdoms, and they would be even less able to feed themselves  I simply do not believe that China is gunning for war, with anyone.  Taiwan and the Spratleys are nothing more to the Chinese than the return of Hong Kong to them was.  It will happen but it won't come close to tipping any international power or wealth scales.

And nobody in the West, or Russia, wants to take on a manned army the size of China's, especially with their quick ability to double, triple, quadruple the size of it.  Better to work diplomatically and economically.  China may experience a great deal of isolation in the aftermath of this virus, and they no-doubt deserve it, but in 10-15 years, if they clean up the damn bat markets and lock down any virus labs, we might all be friends again.  Let's hope so.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

That is for now. That is not going to remain so.

But the regulators need to lay off and stop thinking of the industries as pin cushions for regulations and a source of revenue through fines. The regulators are not there to prevent industry but to prevent excess damage. If they have the industry's presence defined as the target for avoidance then we are better off without the regulatory agencies at all. 

We are likely to have Trump successfully steamroll a US and NAFTA reindustrialization to shut out China from critical supply chains. The entirety of the active pharmaceutical ingredient industry will be provided Federal support and protection against the regulatory and local gnats that tend to shut down industrial development efforts. 

We suddenly see a huge swath of unemployed people who would be willing to move out of dense cities to work in industry controlling and feeding the machines to make "stuff" again. Where they can raise families at decent low cost of living and low cost real estate. 

China will have to figure out how to maneuver out from the government's dependency on the real estate bubble to fund itself, and shift consumption out of cash incomes less so than savings so that the loss of export revenues does not turn into a wave of long term unemployment.

The problem is, Trump is an exception, not the norm for U.S. Presidents.  The next one could be a Democrat for Pete's sakes.  But the truth is every U.S. President (Democrat and Republican) starting with Nixon has largely given China a pass.  Future presidents may say anything to become president, and then start to work on social cooperation and appeasement with the CCP all over again.  We've got 4+ years at best before Trump is gone.  If the Dems win the Presidency, no matter what they say publicly I will be worried about what they are doing behind the scenes.  Ultimately, if the Dems take control, nuclear war would not be my main worry; large scale transitions to socialism would be.