Some men are badasses, others not -- so what? What does that kind of personal nonsense have to do with the larger meanings of war and the consequences of the stale peace experienced after its prolonged absence?

Let's try to keep a thread out of the male insecurity gutter for once -- badassery or the lack thereof are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

(06-14-2014 06:49 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 06:23 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Or an actual invasion of the mainland US? And which country do you believe capable of that?

There isn't one. Not without either possessing and using an unheard of weapon, or possessing and using an unheard of method of transporting troops and supplies across an ocean.

Those were my thoughts as well.

Has their been a situation where a war dethroned a superower without them being invaded (at least in recent history)? Are they just going to smash a massive military against a brick wall until it's nothing?

I definitely understand the argument that a war would be hard to actually win, like I mentioned, but I don't see how the US would be dethroned as a superpower over a failed war when there is always the option of cutting losses and withdrawing.

(06-14-2014 07:01 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Agreed on all counts -- that is why I noted in the OP that we are likely to suffer initial setbacks before prevailing decisively.

Agreed.

Civil War: Bull Run, Seven Days, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, etc.

WWI: Basically the first few months, where the US tried to do what the British and French had failed doing in 1914.

WWII: Kasserine, basically everything against the Africa Korps before El Guettar. Also, refer to our stalemate at Anzio.

Korea: Task Force Smith and the first few months before the landing at Inchon. The Choisin Reservoir as well.

Vietnam: Ia Drang Valley (a battle the US won, but learned valuable lessons from), the defense against the Tet Offensive.

Iraq: Fallujah.

(06-14-2014 07:09 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Those were my thoughts as well.

Has their been a situation where a war dethroned a superower without them being invaded (at least in recent history)?

Depends, do you consider pre-World War I Germany a superpower? Do you consider the British Empire a superpower prior to World War II? If you do, then the answer is yes.

(06-14-2014 07:16 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 07:09 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Those were my thoughts as well.

Has their been a situation where a war dethroned a superower without them being invaded (at least in recent history)?

Depends, do you consider pre-World War I Germany a superpower? Do you consider the British Empire a superpower prior to World War II? If you do, then the answer is yes.

Yeah, my wording was awful there.

When I say invasion, I meant more about the war reaching their soil. Not necessarily an actual ground invasion. I think Osiris got my meaning but invasion obviously isn't the correct term there.

Could China, Russia, whoever actually reach the mainland US with a missile, plane, what have you with enough consistency to inflict any lasting damage.

The countries you mentioned were both bombed, and the fighting and threat of full scale invasion was looming on their doorstep the entire time.

I don't see how anything less than that would be enough to dethrone a superpower.

(06-14-2014 07:16 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Depends, do you consider pre-World War I Germany a superpower? Do you consider the British Empire a superpower prior to World War II? If you do, then the answer is yes.

Germany regained its status a decade and a half later, to the worlds lament...

Britain mitigated their losses pretty well. Churchill, Atlee, Eden, and Macmillan worked hard to build the "special relationship" between the UK and the US. It wasn't until the Suez Crisis that both the UK and France really lost their status for sure. They're still top world powers, neither has descended into Somalia-like clan warfare. What people get wrong about an international loss of power and prestige is that it rarely upends the social order completely.

Without invasion, empires decline, they don't burn out overnight.

A lot of ignorance about China going on in this thread. China's not an imperialistic country. Never was, never will be. But as China grows stronger, their ability to tell America to mind its own business in the Pacific increases as well. If (and when) conflict kicks off, it'll revolve around and center on China's backyard. That'll level the playing field quite a bit.

As for calling Chinese men pussies, don't underestimate your opponent. Of course city dwellers are going to be soft. If you want, I can take you to the countryside and teach you a few insults. See how well you do.

Military power is all the US has left.

It reminds me of that scene in "Training Day" when Denzel Washington says "King Kong aint got shit on me!" and everybody just kind of ignores him, not taking him seriously at all.

Its the rallying cry of a dying nation. Unfortunately, Americans have nothing else to gather around, so they beat off to the drum of their own "greatness."

Peregrine, interesting to note how your post distills an assurance of the coming war. That is as it should be.

No one has anything against the Chinese, by the way -- at least I do not. We are all just fulfilling our destinies.

(06-14-2014 07:49 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Could China, Russia, whoever actually reach the mainland US with a missile, plane, what have you with enough consistency to inflict any lasting damage.

The countries you mentioned were both bombed, and the fighting and threat of full scale invasion was looming on their doorstep the entire time.

I don't see how anything less than that would be enough to dethrone a superpower.

I don't believe that the Germans were bombed during WWI, at least in any real sense. As for China and Russia being able to reach the US with missiles or planes, I think the Russians could do it with missiles. I don't believe the Chinese could.

I once met a croatian girl. She told me some stories about balkans war. It was no fun listening to her while she was crying about her mom and dad being killed and she being left alone in the world with 5 years old.

There are some things we´ve been hearing on this forum such as American empire or US having the most lethal army in history. There was only one empire: The romans. The US has no empire or is the center of an empire. Not surprising this erroneous notion when they call world series to their baseball final.
There is one prevalent nation which is US, but that doesn´t mean there´s an empire. Throughout history one nation or several have always been prevalent.

Roma was the only center of an true empire in human history.

Romans conquered the best and most advanced nations in their time. They´ve conquered by force and because they were more advanced in many areas. Not only military.

In the 90´s american series were really great. Knight rider, A team, the angel, baywatch, Macgyver. There was a underlying factor one all these series. Doing good for others. Nowadays the US series are utter shit. I still watch some of them, but in general they lack purpose. A rejection of american values will start to develop. Some things I read here which happen in US is mindblowing.

Americans have never been really tested. Nor they will. It could have happened with Soviet Union but didn´t. The US could have opened a full blown war with the soviets but never did. Why? because they would have both lost since they would become weakened. Probably another european country would have emerged as superpower.

I´ve already met some war fanatics in my lifetime. Normally those are the ones who can´t throw a punch.

Back to the OP. The drums of war are beating. If a war in the pacific happens nobody will now the outcome.

Chinese are getting stronger and stronger. And for a chinese government wiping out 30-40 millions of their citizens would be something desirable. Just recently a law was passed in a province forbiding chinese to bury their loved ones. All chinese shall be cremated after the 1st of June 2014. There´s no land available to bury chinese.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...urial.html

When a war happens you roll the dice.

(06-14-2014 08:07 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Military power is all the US has left.

It reminds me of that scene in "Training Day" when Denzel Washington says "King Kong aint got shit on me!" and everybody just kind of ignores him, not taking him seriously at all.

Its the rallying cry of a dying nation. Unfortunately, Americans have nothing else to gather around, so they beat off to the drum of their own "greatness."

Well, we still have Family Guy. Too bad you're not a fan...

I do appreciate, however, seeing a truly belligerent Canadian. It reminds me of that passage in Dr. Johnson about female preachers:

Quote:I told him I had been that morning at a meeting of the people called Quakers, where I had heard a woman preach. Johnson: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Boswell: Life

(06-14-2014 08:08 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Peregrine, interesting to note how your post distills an assurance of the coming war. That is as it should be.

No one has anything against the Chinese, by the way -- at least I do not. We are all just fulfilling our destinies.

Certainly. I agree that we're fixing to fight within 10 years. Anyone's guess as to what specific event sets off the growing powder keg.

Second comment was an indirect response to Enigma's "And again, we're comparing our soldiers to the Chinese, who aren't exactly paragons of masculinity." No harm done, just wanted to get the other side on record.

(06-14-2014 08:01 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  A lot of ignorance about China going on in this thread. China's not an imperialistic country. Never was, never will be. But as China grows stronger, their ability to tell America to mind its own business in the Pacific increases as well. If (and when) conflict kicks off, it'll revolve around and center on China's backyard. That'll level the playing field quite a bit.

As for calling Chinese men pussies, don't underestimate your opponent. Of course city dwellers are going to be soft. If you want, I can take you to the countryside and teach you a few insults. See how well you do.

操你妈!

You've experienced Chinese infrastructure right? If their military is anything like the rest of the country, any fight between China and the US will be over quick. In addition to Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as allies, since the Korean War, American policy makers have referred to usage of "massive retaliation" when considering how to respond to a direct Chinese attack on American forces.

(06-14-2014 08:12 PM)Pepini Wrote:  There was only one empire: The romans.

I thought historically the roman empire was nowhere near the biggest, or even top 5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lar...population

Quote:As for China and Russia being able to reach the US with missiles or planes, I think the Russians could do it with missiles. I don't believe the Chinese could.

Both China and Russia could. Submarines help.

(06-14-2014 08:17 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:01 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  A lot of ignorance about China going on in this thread. China's not an imperialistic country. Never was, never will be. But as China grows stronger, their ability to tell America to mind its own business in the Pacific increases as well. If (and when) conflict kicks off, it'll revolve around and center on China's backyard. That'll level the playing field quite a bit.

As for calling Chinese men pussies, don't underestimate your opponent. Of course city dwellers are going to be soft. If you want, I can take you to the countryside and teach you a few insults. See how well you do.

操你妈!

You've experienced Chinese infrastructure right? If their military is anything like the rest of the country, any fight between China and the US will be over quick. In addition to Taiwan, Korea, and Japan as allies, since the Korean War, American policy makers have referred to usage of "massive retaliation" when considering how to respond to a direct Chinese attack on American forces.

Yes I have, and I agree that they're not ready yet. I imagine that things will be different in a few years.

I would like to try to rescue the thread from its more or less interesting derailment.

My point in the OP was not to "beat the drums of war" or call for war. It was not a call for anything. Nor was the point to assert US military superiority or otherwise.

I made a number of basic observations, in brief:

1. The true purpose of war is misunderstood. Mankind engages in wars to put itself in situations of combat pressure that catalyze spurts of explosive technological progress.

2. The late stages of a very extended peacetime -- the stale peace which we are in now -- are characterized by a sense of societal decay and decline, as men lose their purpose and focus, women become crazed and uncontrollable, and society as a whole occupies itself with relative trivia and is gripped by excessive caution and risk aversion.

3. But these seemingly inexorable trends are obliterated by major conflicts that restore men's sense of purpose and put women in their proper place, while spurring periods of explosive progress, innovation, and growth.

4. Such a conflict is coming -- a major global conflict, not a civil war. The stale peace will not last forever. Savor its sickly sweet rot while you can.

(06-14-2014 08:23 PM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

(06-14-2014 08:12 PM)Pepini Wrote:  There was only one empire: The romans.

I thought historically the roman empire was nowhere near the biggest, or even top 5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lar...population

If Brazil plays agains Suriname they will probably defeat it for 12-0. Does this mean Brazil is the best team in the world? Even though they had the biggest goal difference. No.

If Brazil plays against Spain, Germany, Italy, and wins 12-0 to each one of them then yes it´s the best team in the world.

You gotta beat the best to be the best.

I think a major pressure point will be the question of whether the USA would actually intervene in Asia in support of their allies/vassals South Korea, Japan, Philippines. I don't think China would start a war if they were sure that the USA would in fact intervene. But they might start something to test the waters.

(06-14-2014 08:36 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  2. The late stages of a very extended peacetime -- the stale peace which we are in now -- are characterized by a sense of societal decay and decline, as men lose their purpose and focus, women become crazed and uncontrollable, and society as a whole occupies itself with relative trivia and is gripped by excessive caution and risk aversion.

Are you familiar with Strauss and Howe's Generational Theory? They wrote multiple works on the subject, and they're interesting reads. I vaguely-think the first one came out in the early 90's. They'd predict, based upon the current American generation, that they're about to experience a widespread crisis - an unravelling of what society currently is. Based upon past history, they're supposed to be the a generation of Heroes, which seems highly unlikely to my eyes, but maybe crisis will snap them out of their low-resilient mindsets.

AB, I was not familiar with this theory but I looked it up.

Like many such things, it contains a grain of truth -- the general observation that there is a natural cyclicality of generations, and some commonalities between generations that are shaped by major wars, as well as between generations that inherit an extended peacetime. But as usual, this accurate general observation cannot bear the burden of trying to extend it to encompass an impossibly regular pattern of an exact 4 generation cycle, "turnings" and "awakenings" and "prophets" and "nomads" and the like.

The problem with a lot of people's thinking is that they don't know when to stop -- when a particular line of thought has been carried as far as it can be, and any attempt to force it to go any farther is no longer useful. On the other hand, if the purpose is to churn out books and be invited to think tanks, maybe that is a feature not a bug, LOL.

(06-14-2014 09:33 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  AB, I was not familiar with this theory but I looked it up.

Like many such things, it contains a grain of truth -- the general observation that there is a natural cyclicality of generations, and some commonalities between generations that are shaped by major wars, as well as between generations that inherit an extended peacetime. But as usual, this accurate general observation cannot bear the burden of trying to extend it to encompass an impossibly regular pattern of an exact 4 generation cycle, "turnings" and "awakenings" and "prophets" and "nomads" and the like.

The problem with a lot of people's thinking is that they don't know when to stop -- when a particular line of thought has been carried as far as it can be, and any attempt to force it to go any farther is no longer useful. On the other hand, if the purpose is to churn out books and be invited to think tanks, maybe that is a feature not a bug, LOL.

I've had some doubts about the rigidity myself. Social problems characterised the Gilded Age; and the period of WWI didn't lead to a a golden age, but more decadence; and I have been wondering if we're seeing something entirely new with the Millenials - the first generation that shares the value of their parents, and are incapable of reaction.

That being said, I still found it an interesting read.

Noticed this quote by David Bowie the other day, on his 2002 album 'Heathen' that seems related to the sense of staleness and waiting for something to happen to that you're describing.

Quote:Heathen kind of felt right, in as much as it was about the unilluminated mind. It was an idea, a feeling, a sense of what 21st Century man might become if he’s not already: someone who’s lowered his standards spiritually, intellectually, morally whatever…someone who’s not even bothered searching for a spiritual life anymore but who’s completely existing on a materialistic plain. But just using the word “heathen” is kind of less preachy than explaining all that. ‘Cos if you wrote all that on the front of an album cover, nobody would bother buying it, would they?

(06-14-2014 08:10 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I don't believe that the Germans were bombed during WWI, at least in any real sense. As for China and Russia being able to reach the US with missiles or planes, I think the Russians could do it with missiles. I don't believe the Chinese could.

You may be right. I know they were bombed during WWI, but I'm not a history buff, so it may have been pretty inconsequential.

(06-14-2014 08:24 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:As for China and Russia being able to reach the US with missiles or planes, I think the Russians could do it with missiles. I don't believe the Chinese could.

Both China and Russia could. Submarines help.

To the point of causing significant and strategic damage? I'm sure they could sneak a few missiles through, but do you believe they could actually pose a threat to the mainland US on a major level, is what I'm saying?

I'm talking huge blows to infrastructure to the point of dethroning the US as a superpower?

(06-14-2014 08:15 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  Second comment was an indirect response to Enigma's "And again, we're comparing our soldiers to the Chinese, who aren't exactly paragons of masculinity." No harm done, just wanted to get the other side on record.

Quote:As for calling Chinese men pussies, don't underestimate your opponent. Of course city dwellers are going to be soft. If you want, I can take you to the countryside and teach you a few insults. See how well you do.

Saying someone isn't the epitome or paragon of masculinity is not saying they're pussies. The fact that I moved from the US to Asia should tell you I'm not on some "rah rah USA's the best" tip and I definitely don't want to live in a potential warzone.

But a spade is a spade. They don't have a particularly masculine culture and as Lizard pointed out, they're typically much smaller than their American counterpart.

I can take you to country areas in the US where you won't even make it up the driveway. Hell, you can't even walk through certain areas of Chicago, a major city.

We could go on like this forever, my point is that focusing on the masculinity of the men on either side is rather pointless.

If the west is experiencing some sort of macroconscious push toward war than it's a suicidal one.

American military supremacy is designed for vast conventional warfare. However if it was a full scale war with 2 conventional armies with a much higher combined population and actual weapons of mass destruction then the outcome is uncertain.

People assume it'll be just China but I think Russia is a much more realistic threat. Putin is actually trying to bring back the glory of the Soviet state. Russia is eyeballing the arctic because it's now drillable thanks to melting polar caps and there's billions upon billions in natural resources lying beneath. This flashpoint was recently covered in Vice. There is a joint task force with Nato allies that trains there for that reason.

The most likely flashpoint that the U.S. will have with China is over the Spratley island conflict. However, it's still pretty unlikely to blow up into mass military engagement.

I don't know why people are so eager to see something like this happen though. A modern war between two countries armed with vast conventional armies AND WMDs will not be any kind of glorious war. It'll just be lots of missiles flying overhead, mini nukes, and fuel air explosives being dropped on each other. No matter how little you think of China it's still not a half-assed nation of dirt farmers like Iraq. Neither is Russia for that matter. They can bring serious civ changing damage in a war.