Empire and Invasion: Inevitable?

[Gethelred]

This thread is brought about because of a conversation between RCAB and kranky al, concerning the historicity of a claim made early on: in any 50 year bloc of human history, a stronger nation has invaded a weaker one.

If you have any opinions or evidence to put forth for or against, grab your lances and get to jousting!

 

[kranky al]

I'm not sure, as I'm not a naval expert. What I will say is that that is a problem that will be clearly flagged well in advance; you're not going to wake up one morning and find a fleet of Chinese warships beside a factory fleet tomorrow. It's well within the basis of being planned for.

And I manifestly do not think it is in the best interests of any of the nations they'd have to sail that series of ships past to allow that kind of behaviour in sovereign waters in the long term; in the short term, it's bugger you jack I'm alright, but in the long it's only a matter of time before the pendulum swings your way and you'd be better off building that support earlier. Ther's also the reality that getting US bases of our landmass doesn't necessarily break the alliance between the two; Trump is truly a golden opportunity in that way.

That we would need to spend more on defense should go without saying, but this is very warhawk to me.

I study history.

One of my absorbing hobbies.

And what I’ve found is that in recorded human history there is not a single fifty period where a militarily stronger nation hasn’t invaded a weaker nation to steal their shit.


We in WA have a shed load of resources, both industrial and food.

China has a massive population and both the desire to dominate resources worldwide and feed their populace.

They are building a fleet of multiple aircraft carrier groups….. the only purpose of is to project force anywhere on the globe.

<<<
Last month, three Chinese naval vessels conducted live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea without prior notification to Canberra while on a voyage circling Australia. The drills not only heightened tensions within the Australian government but also ignited a bizarre wave of nationalist fervour back in China. On internet platforms such as Zhihu, frequented primarily by young people with at least university education, some began openly declaring Chinese sovereignty over the Australian mainland – a claim that, disturbingly, gained more than 20 million hits.

Traditionally, both official Beijing narratives and state-tolerated social media discourse have centred territorial ambitions on areas close to China – Taiwan, Okinawa, islands in the South China Sea, and very occasionally the Philippine Island of Palawan beyond the nine-dash line. These territorial claims usually draw upon rhetoric deeply ingrained into popular consciousness along the lines that “such territory historically belongs to China”. However, Australia, distant and lacking any historical ties to China, has required a different justification – emerging now through a troubling resurgence of pan-Asianism.

This new pan-Asianist wave appears to have originated from a popular online time-travel novel titled Illumine Lingao, nearly ten million words in length. Originally published in 2009, the novel fostered an influential faction among Chinese nationalists known as the Industrial Party, who firmly believe that China can ultimately “rejuvenate” by maximising its industrial production capacity.

Although labelled as “new”, the current theory differs little in substance from the pan-Asianism seen more than 90 years ago. Just as before, expansionist ambitions rest on naval power projection, envisioning one dominant East Asian nation presiding over an Asia-Pacific order. This country’s developmental successes purportedly confer moral legitimacy upon its leadership, intertwined with ethnic chauvinism or even outright Asian racial supremacy.

This resurgence of pan-Asian ideology isn’t merely speculative; it manifests openly in online discussions among China’s youth. One lawyer explicitly asserted that “Australia has always been the frontline between yellow and white races, and between Han Chinese and Anglo-Saxons”, citing Australia’s discriminatory “White Australia Policy” (dismantled in 1973) as justification. He argued that China’s responsibility is to lead all Asians in punishing Australia for historical injustices.>>>

 

[Gethelred]

I study history.

One of my absorbing hobbies.

And what I’ve found is that in recorded human history there is not a single fifty period where a militarily stronger nation hasn’t invaded a weaker nation to steal their shit.


We in WA have a shed load of resources, both industrial and food.

China has a massive population and both the desire to dominate resources worldwide and feed their populace.

They are building a fleet of multiple aircraft carrier groups….. the only purpose of is to project force anywhere on the globe.

<<<
Last month, three Chinese naval vessels conducted live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea without prior notification to Canberra while on a voyage circling Australia. The drills not only heightened tensions within the Australian government but also ignited a bizarre wave of nationalist fervour back in China. On internet platforms such as Zhihu, frequented primarily by young people with at least university education, some began openly declaring Chinese sovereignty over the Australian mainland – a claim that, disturbingly, gained more than 20 million hits.

Traditionally, both official Beijing narratives and state-tolerated social media discourse have centred territorial ambitions on areas close to China – Taiwan, Okinawa, islands in the South China Sea, and very occasionally the Philippine Island of Palawan beyond the nine-dash line. These territorial claims usually draw upon rhetoric deeply ingrained into popular consciousness along the lines that “such territory historically belongs to China”. However, Australia, distant and lacking any historical ties to China, has required a different justification – emerging now through a troubling resurgence of pan-Asianism.

This new pan-Asianist wave appears to have originated from a popular online time-travel novel titled Illumine Lingao, nearly ten million words in length. Originally published in 2009, the novel fostered an influential faction among Chinese nationalists known as the Industrial Party, who firmly believe that China can ultimately “rejuvenate” by maximising its industrial production capacity.

Although labelled as “new”, the current theory differs little in substance from the pan-Asianism seen more than 90 years ago. Just as before, expansionist ambitions rest on naval power projection, envisioning one dominant East Asian nation presiding over an Asia-Pacific order. This country’s developmental successes purportedly confer moral legitimacy upon its leadership, intertwined with ethnic chauvinism or even outright Asian racial supremacy.

This resurgence of pan-Asian ideology isn’t merely speculative; it manifests openly in online discussions among China’s youth. One lawyer explicitly asserted that “Australia has always been the frontline between yellow and white races, and between Han Chinese and Anglo-Saxons”, citing Australia’s discriminatory “White Australia Policy” (dismantled in 1973) as justification. He argued that China’s responsibility is to lead all Asians in punishing Australia for historical injustices.>>>

When linking something from another site, can you make sure to include the link?

Yes, some of China’s educated youth just asserted sovereignty over Australia | Lowy Institute

Online platforms reveal a fervent nationalism that has repercussions for the future of the region.

www.lowyinstitute.org

We've also discussed thia before. Looking at China to invade Australia is dumb. Economically exploit us, certainly, but there are so many barriers to them even getting that carrier fleet to WA to extend that force is an untenable scenario.

And it'll take more than the Lowy Institute's say so to get me to change my mind.

 

[kranky al]

When linking something from another site, can you make sure to include the link?

Yes, some of China’s educated youth just asserted sovereignty over Australia | Lowy Institute

Online platforms reveal a fervent nationalism that has repercussions for the future of the region.

www.lowyinstitute.org

We've also discussed thia before. Looking at China to invade Australia is dumb. Economically exploit us, certainly, but there are so many barriers to them even getting that carrier fleet to WA to extend that force is an untenable scenario.

And it'll take more than the Lowy Institute's say so to get me to change my mind.

They doing need to invade Australia, just nw wa - there’s the resources right there.

There’s the fishing scenario.

There’s being fought over like the Middle East in ww2 - where you invade as much to deny your enemy resources as you want them yourselves.

Little known fact - when Australia appealed to the us for help in ww2 they had already planned on using us as a base - and they weren’t asking…..

There’s that link:

Yes, some of China’s educated youth just asserted sovereignty over Australia | Lowy Institute

Online platforms reveal a fervent nationalism that has repercussions for the future of the region.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Remiss of me

Here’s an article from the Chinese perspective:

Translation: “Why is Everyone Talking About China ‘Seizing’ Australia?”

Following China’s unannounced naval exercises off the coast of Australia late last month, there has been a noticeable increase in Chinese social media content promoting the invasion (or “nabbing/seizing”) of Australia. There has also been pushback: many Chinese bloggers and commenters have...

chinadigitaltimes.net

 

[Ghost Patrol]

They doing need to invade Australia, just nw wa - there’s the resources right there.

There’s the fishing scenario.

There’s being fought over like the Middle East in ww2 - where you invade as much to deny your enemy resources as you want them yourselves.

Little known fact - when Australia appealed to the us for help in ww2 they had already planned on using us as a base - and they weren’t asking…..

There’s that link:

Yes, some of China’s educated youth just asserted sovereignty over Australia | Lowy Institute

Online platforms reveal a fervent nationalism that has repercussions for the future of the region.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Remiss of me

Here’s an article from the Chinese perspective:

Translation: “Why is Everyone Talking About China ‘Seizing’ Australia?”

Following China’s unannounced naval exercises off the coast of Australia late last month, there has been a noticeable increase in Chinese social media content promoting the invasion (or “nabbing/seizing”) of Australia. There has also been pushback: many Chinese bloggers and commenters have...

chinadigitaltimes.net

China are very patient and will hold off until Westralian Secession.

​

 

[kranky al]

China are very patient and will hold off until Westralian Secession.

​

Without the us wa is as well defended as it is without the rest of Australia as it is with

Regular infantry battalions 0
Regular armoured cavalry units 0
Regular tank units 0
Regular artillery units 0
Fighter squadrons 0

We do have more than our share of naval units but that’s a strategic location thing.

Oh and we have S.A.S - which is nice but not really anything to do more than pinprick an invasion.

It’s actually pathetic the size of our defence force. A handful of infantry battalions at partial strength.

1 RAR
2 RAR
3 RAR
5/7 RAR
8/9 RAR

That’s it.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Without the us wa is as well defended as it is without the rest of Australia as it is with

Regular infantry battalions 0
Regular armoured cavalry units 0
Regular tank units 0
Fighter squadrons 0

We do have more than our share of naval units but that’s a strategic location thing.

Oh and we have S.A.S - which is nice but not really anything to do more than pinprick an invasion.

It’s actually pathetic the size of our defence force. A handful of infantry battalions at partial strength.

1 RAR
2 RAR
3 RAR
5/7 RAR
8/9 RAR

That’s it.

Those are all useless mate. All you need is a large fleet of drones piloted by Call of Duty kids.

 

[kranky al]

Those are all useless mate. All you need is a large fleet of drones piloted by Call of Duty kids.

Oh you need them as well - but you still need the rest of it.

Combined arms ops is more important than ever.

But yeah Ukraine has 900000 drone pilots…

 

[Gethelred]

They doing need to invade Australia, just nw wa - there’s the resources right there.

There’s the fishing scenario.

There’s being fought over like the Middle East in ww2 - where you invade as much to deny your enemy resources as you want them yourselves.

Little known fact - when Australia appealed to the us for help in ww2 they had already planned on using us as a base - and they weren’t asking…..

There’s that link:

Yes, some of China’s educated youth just asserted sovereignty over Australia | Lowy Institute

Online platforms reveal a fervent nationalism that has repercussions for the future of the region.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Remiss of me

Here’s an article from the Chinese perspective:

Translation: “Why is Everyone Talking About China ‘Seizing’ Australia?”

Following China’s unannounced naval exercises off the coast of Australia late last month, there has been a noticeable increase in Chinese social media content promoting the invasion (or “nabbing/seizing”) of Australia. There has also been pushback: many Chinese bloggers and commenters have...

chinadigitaltimes.net

... an article which discusses growing online sentiment towards annexation of Australia within chatrooms and forums. Tell me, if I start a thread entitled, "Reasons why Australia should take over Britain", and begin to start citing how we can right the wrongs of Colonialism and reclaim the wealth taken from us in the Gold Rush, does that entail the government must seriously consider sailing what scant naval resources we have through multiple different nation's areas of control - some of which would look askance towards an Australian fleet sailing through their territory in force - to reach a country in another hemisphere that we have had a historically good relationship with, multiple trade treaties with, and a reciprocal relationship with?

Because that'd make as much sense as what you're suggesting.

They. Would. Have. To. Sail. Their. Entire. Force. Past. Multiple. US. Bases. In. The. Pacific. To. Get. Here.

The US do not need their bases on our soil to foil a naval or aerial assault on the Australian landmass. There are multiple countries that would come to our aid, because - as stated - we're in the 5 Eyes, and China being allowed to just up and take a nation in another hemisphere is not something anyone - including ****ing Trump - would want to encourage.

Now, I'm going to bed. Hopefully I dream of something more plausible than this is.

 

[RCAB]

I study history.

One of my absorbing hobbies.

And what I’ve found is that in recorded human history there is not a single fifty period where a militarily stronger nation hasn’t invaded a weaker nation to steal their shit.


We in WA have a shed load of resources, both industrial and food.

China has a massive population and both the desire to dominate resources worldwide and feed their populace.

They are building a fleet of multiple aircraft carrier groups….. the only purpose of is to project force anywhere on the globe.

This is an interesting claim:

"there isn’t a single 50-year period in recorded history where a militarily stronger nation hasn’t invaded a weaker one to steal their shit.”

But unfortunately... it falls apart the moment you apply any actual historical method to it.

Let's see...

First, you’re making a global claim: that at every moment in time, somewhere, a stronger state must be invading a weaker one for loot. Historical fatalism dressed up as insight is lazy.

I can easily give you multiple 50-year windows where your rule breaks:

The reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE) & the most powerful empire on earth chose not to invade.

Antoninus ruled during a remarkably peaceful 23-year stretch.

No major wars, no expansionist campaigns despite Rome having full capacity to launch them.

Extend that stretch with preceding/following emperors like Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius, and you can construct a clean 50-year interval with limited aggressive action despite supremacy.

In fact, Hadrian (117–138) intentionally withdrew from Roman expansion in Mesopotamia and consolidated borders.


The Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy (493–553 CE)

The Ostrogoths under Theodoric the Great ruled Italy after Rome's fall.

For decades, they didn’t launch new foreign invasions, even while holding military dominance over surrounding fragmented post-Roman territories.

Theodoric promoted stability, tolerance, and diplomacy, not expansion.

Any aggression came later with the Byzantine-Gothic wars (535+).


Venice during its Golden Age (c. 1400–1450)

Extremely wealthy and militarized maritime republic.

Had the power to easily dominate many smaller states or islands.

Focused on trade supremacy, diplomacy, and naval defense, not land-based invasion.

Its campaigns were reactive or commercial and not “climb a tree, take stuff.”


Japan (1945–1995) — one of the most industrialized, militarily capable nations on earth. Didn’t invade a soul. Still hasn’t.


Sweden (1814–1864) — had the power, didn’t use it. Long before post-WWII pacifism.


Tang Dynasty (720–770 CE) — dominant in Asia, held the balance without expansion.


Costa Rica (1950–2000) — disbanded its military entirely. Still not invaded, still not invading.


Hell, even Switzerland has sat through centuries of chaos without projecting power. The point isn’t that they were stronger, it’s that there were long stretches where stronger nations simply didn’t invade.


So unless you’re hiding a global war log that’s escaped every historian on Earth, your claim doesn’t hold up.

Also, your framing ignores complexity.

“Stronger” how? Militarily? Economically? Nuclear capacity?

“Stealing their shit” — really? That’s your analytical lens?


The irony is that you claim to “study history” but what you’re offering isn’t history. It’s a pub-tier worldview that boils down every power dynamic into caveman logic. Real historical inquiry deals in systems, diplomacy, restraint, ideology, and timing. Not just who swung a club first.

If you want to talk about Chinese naval power, pan-Asianism, or Australia’s strategic position, great, there’s a real discussion there.


But let me guess...

This “every 50 years” thing came from a YouTube video with dramatic music, zoomed-in maps, and a guy saying “history always repeats”?

Look, if you want to cosplay as a geopolitician, fine... but don’t slap historical certainty on it unless you’re ready to defend it with actual periods, events, and records.

Name three 50-year periods (any continent, any century) and show how they fit your “stronger always invades weaker to steal their shit” model.

But don't include intentions, near-misses, or vague power imbalances as invasions, judt so we keep it historical and not conjectural.

Or...

I’m starting to think your “study of history" might just mean "knows a lot about the British Empire".

Because you’ve taken the most aggressively expansionist power in modern history (the one that literally defined imperial plunder) and apllied the blueprint for everyone else... forever.

Do you think every state is Britain? Do you believe every period to be a 19th-century gunboat diplomacy?

 

[kranky al]

... an article which discusses growing online sentiment towards annexation of Australia within chatrooms and forums. Tell me, if I start a thread entitled, "Reasons why Australia should take over Britain", and begin to start citing how we can right the wrongs of Colonialism and reclaim the wealth taken from us in the Gold Rush, does that entail the government must seriously consider sailing what scant naval resources we have through multiple different nation's areas of control - some of which would look askance towards an Australian fleet sailing through their territory in force - to reach a country in another hemisphere that we have had a historically good relationship with, multiple trade treaties with, and a reciprocal relationship with?

Because that'd make as much sense as what you're suggesting.

They. Would. Have. To. Sail. Their. Entire. Force. Past. Multiple. US. Bases. In. The. Pacific. To. Get. Here.

The US do not need their bases on our soil to foil a naval or aerial assault on the Australian landmass. There are multiple countries that would come to our aid, because - as stated - we're in the 5 Eyes, and China being allowed to just up and take a nation in another hemisphere is not something anyone - including ****ing Trump - would want to encourage.

Now, I'm going to bed. Hopefully I dream of something more plausible than this is.

We were discussing a world in which we have ditched the us as an ally…..

 

[kranky al]

This is an interesting claim:

"there isn’t a single 50-year period in recorded history where a militarily stronger nation hasn’t invaded a weaker one to steal their shit.”

But unfortunately... it falls apart the moment you apply any actual historical method to it.

Let's see...

First, you’re making a global claim: that at every moment in time, somewhere, a stronger state must be invading a weaker one for loot. Historical fatalism dressed up as insight is lazy.

I can easily give you multiple 50-year windows where your rule breaks:

The reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE) & the most powerful empire on earth chose not to invade.

Antoninus ruled during a remarkably peaceful 23-year stretch.

No major wars, no expansionist campaigns despite Rome having full capacity to launch them.

That’s 23 years. Less than half of a 50 year period

Meanwhile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman–Parthian_War_of_161–1

Extend that stretch with preceding/following emperors like Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius, and you can construct a clean 50-year interval with limited aggressive action despite supremacy.

In fact, Hadrian (117–138) intentionally withdrew from Roman expansion in Mesopotamia and consolidated borders.


The Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy (493–553 CE)

The Ostrogoths under Theodoric the Great ruled Italy after Rome's fall.

For decades, they didn’t launch new foreign invasions, even while holding military dominance over surrounding fragmented post-Roman territories.

Theodoric promoted stability, tolerance, and diplomacy, not expansion.

Any aggression came later with the Byzantine-Gothic wars (535+).

You are taking individual empires.

I’m stating that the world hasn’t had some country invading another for a fifty year period in human history

You can’t just say oh the Roman’s didn’t invade someone for 23 years that counts….

Venice during its Golden Age (c. 1400–1450)

Extremely wealthy and militarized maritime republic.

Had the power to easily dominate many smaller states or islands.

Focused on trade supremacy, diplomacy, and naval defense, not land-based invasion.

Its campaigns were reactive or commercial and not “climb a tree, take stuff.”


Japan (1945–1995) — one of the most industrialized, militarily capable nations on earth. Didn’t invade a soul. Still hasn’t.


Sweden (1814–1864) — had the power, didn’t use it. Long before post-WWII pacifism.


Tang Dynasty (720–770 CE) — dominant in Asia, held the balance without expansion.


Costa Rica (1950–2000) — disbanded its military entirely. Still not invaded, still not invading.


Hell, even Switzerland has sat through centuries of chaos without projecting power. The point isn’t that they were stronger, it’s that there were long stretches where stronger nations simply didn’t invade.


So unless you’re hiding a global war log that’s escaped every historian on Earth, your claim doesn’t hold up.

Also, your framing ignores complexity.

“Stronger” how? Militarily? Economically? Nuclear capacity?

“Stealing their shit” — really? That’s your analytical lens?


The irony is that you claim to “study history” but what you’re offering isn’t history. It’s a pub-tier worldview that boils down every power dynamic into caveman logic. Real historical inquiry deals in systems, diplomacy, restraint, ideology, and timing. Not just who swung a club first.

If you want to talk about Chinese naval power, pan-Asianism, or Australia’s strategic position, great, there’s a real discussion there.


But let me guess...

This “every 50 years” thing came from a YouTube video with dramatic music, zoomed-in maps, and a guy saying “history always repeats”?

Look, if you want to cosplay as a geopolitician, fine... but don’t slap historical certainty on it unless you’re ready to defend it with actual periods, events, and records.

Name three 50-year periods (any continent, any century) and show how they fit your “stronger always invades weaker to steal their shit” model.

But don't include intentions, near-misses, or vague power imbalances as invasions, judt so we keep it historical and not conjectural.

Or...

I’m starting to think your “study of history" might just mean "knows a lot about the British Empire".

Because you’ve taken the most aggressively expansionist power in modern history (the one that literally defined imperial plunder) and apllied the blueprint for everyone else... forever.

Do you think every state is Britain? Do you believe every period to be a 19th-century gunboat diplomacy?

No I believe that nations that are stronger that others invade those others - and have done throughout human history.

Your semantics and attempts to compartmentalise are trying to hand wave away human history.

China has taken an area of land more than half the size of Tasmania off the Indians.

It’s occupied Tibet and the Uighurs, has over a million uighurs in concentration camps, has clearly stated its intention to occupy Taiwan - has a message board with 20 million replies discussing annexing Australia. Is undergoing the largest peacetime military buildup in human history. Sees itself as the inheritor of the world’s hegemon. Is building carrier groups faster than any other world powers put together can keep up with.

And you think everything is fine and dandy….

I don’t. China are not benign.

 

[Gethelred]

We were discussing a world in which we have ditched the us as an ally…..

No, we were discussing a world in which we used Trump as an opportunity to withdraw American troops and bases from Australian soil without losing the alliance, because Trump will at some point be gone and sanity will resume.

 

[kranky al]

No, we were discussing a world in which we used Trump as an opportunity to withdraw American troops and bases from Australian soil without losing the alliance, because Trump will at some point be gone and sanity will resume.

My apologies, I misread that as a withdrawal from the us altogether.

However there’s a very very good chance that Trump / trumpism is in for good

I don’t want to be part of an alliance with a dictatorship and I feel we should be preparing for that eventuality.

 

[RCAB]

That’s 23 years. Less than half of a 50 year period

Meanwhile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman–Parthian_War_of_161–1




You are taking individual empires.

I’m stating that the world hasn’t had some country invading another for a fifty year period in human history

You can’t just say oh the Roman’s didn’t invade someone for 23 years that counts….


No I believe that nations that are stronger that others invade those others - and have done throughout human history.

Your semantics and attempts to compartmentalise are trying to hand wave away human history.

China has taken an area of land more than half the size of Tasmania off the Indians.

It’s occupied Tibet and the Uighurs, has over a million uighurs in concentration camps, has clearly stated its intention to occupy Taiwan - has a message board with 20 million replies discussing annexing Australia. Is undergoing the largest peacetime military buildup in human history. Sees itself as the inheritor of the world’s hegemon. Is building carrier groups faster than any other world powers put together can keep up with.

And you think everything is fine and dandy….

I don’t. China are not benign.

Kranky with respect, you’ve walked your claim backwards without actually engaging with any of the historical counterexamples provided.

You originally said:

“There is not a single 50-year period in recorded human history where a militarily stronger nation hasn’t invaded a weaker nation to steal their shit.”

That’s a sweeping, universal assertion and so far... you’ve sidestepped every direct refutation that’s been offered.

Just to recap, here are some of the periods you never addressed:

Japan (1945–1995) — military powerhouse, zero invasions.

Sweden (1814–1864) — strong regional actor, chose neutrality.

Costa Rica (1950–2000) — disarmed entirely, remained peaceful.

Tang Dynasty China (720–770 CE) — dominant, yet restrained.

Venice (1400–1450) — wealthy and militarily capable, focused on trade and defense.

Ostrogothic Italy (493–543 CE) — controlled the peninsula, didn’t expand.

Switzerland — surrounded by powers, never invaded others or provoked wars.


You didn’t refute them, you predictability just moved the conversation to modern China and reframed the claim into something softer and fuzzier:

“Well, there’s always some conflict somewhere.”

That’s not the same thing as “stronger nations always invade weaker ones to take their resources in every 50-year window of history.”



Also...

If you’re counting internal repression (e.g. Uyghurs), online rhetoric (Zhihu posts), and unrealized intent (Taiwan), you’ve exited the historical method completely. That’s not history, it’s predictive projection.

If you still stand by your original claim, then engage with the actual periods listed above. All we need is one exception to disprove a universal. I've given you seven.

Otherwise, just say it was hyperbole and move on. We can still have a real discussion about power, aggression, and China's trajectory. But don’t encapsulate geopolitical anxiety in historical absolutism unless you’re prepared to defend it historically, and you are a student of history, right?

 

[kranky al]

Kranky with respect, you’ve walked your claim backwards without actually engaging with any of the historical counterexamples provided.

You originally said:





That’s a sweeping, universal assertion and so far... you’ve sidestepped every direct refutation that’s been offered.

Just to recap, here are some of the periods you never addressed:

Japan (1945–1995) — military powerhouse, zero invasions.

Sweden (1814–1864) — strong regional actor, chose neutrality.

Costa Rica (1950–2000) — disarmed entirely, remained peaceful.

Tang Dynasty China (720–770 CE) — dominant, yet restrained.

Venice (1400–1450) — wealthy and militarily capable, focused on trade and defense.

Ostrogothic Italy (493–543 CE) — controlled the peninsula, didn’t expand.

Switzerland — surrounded by powers, never invaded others or provoked wars.


You didn’t refute them, you predictability just moved the conversation to modern China and reframed the claim into something softer and fuzzier:


That’s not the same thing as “stronger nations always invade weaker ones to take their resources in every 50-year window of history.”



Also...

If you’re counting internal repression (e.g. Uyghurs), online rhetoric (Zhihu posts), and unrealized intent (Taiwan), you’ve exited the historical method completely. That’s not history, it’s predictive projection.

If you still stand by your original claim, then engage with the actual periods listed above. All we need is one exception to disprove a universal. I've given you seven.

Otherwise, just say it was hyperbole and move on. We can still have a real discussion about power, aggression, and China's trajectory. But don’t encapsulate geopolitical anxiety in historical absolutism unless you’re prepared to defend it historically, and you are a student of history, right?

I’m talking about the world.

Not individual countries or empires.

Not oh Japan didn’t do anything bad for fifty years - but elsewhere in the globe there were ten invasions in that time slot.


I’m saying that there hasn’t been a fifty year period in recorded human history where one country / state hasn’t been invaded by another

Prove me wrong. A fifty year period in history where no country / state suffered being invaded.

 

[RCAB]

I’m talking about the world.

Not individual countries or empires.

Not oh Japan didn’t do anything bad for fifty years - but elsewhere in the globe there were ten invasions in that time slot.


I’m saying that there hasn’t been a fifty year period in recorded human history where one country / state hasn’t been invaded by another

Prove me wrong. A fifty year period in history where no country / state suffered being invaded.

Right... so now we’re miles from your original claim.

You began with this:

“There is not a single 50-year period in recorded human history where a militarily stronger nation hasn’t invaded a weaker nation to steal their shit.”

Now you’ve softened it into:

“There has never been a 50-year window where no country has been invaded somewhere on earth.”

That’s not the same thing.

Your original framing was:

About power asymmetry (stronger vs weaker),

About motivation (to steal),

About inevitability (every time, everywhere).


Now it’s:

Any war,

Any motive,

Any state,

Anywhere.


That’s a generic observation about the presence of conflict in human history, not a law of power or a reflection of China's future, or anything useful. Of course there’s always been violence somewhere. That doesn’t prove anything about how power always functions or how modern states will behave.

What you’ve done is move from making a claim about human nature and power to making a claim about statistical inevitability. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend it’s the same.

Also... if that’s your new hill to die on, fine. But then you’re no longer saying anything profound. You’re just describing that history has been violent, which no one disputes. The question is:
Is it always the strong taking from the weak, everywhere, every time, for loot? You haven’t proven that. You’ve dropped it.

So if you’re done moving the goalposts, we can have a real conversation, otherwise you’re just running from your own thesis.

 

[kranky al]

Right... so now we’re miles from your original claim.

You began with this:





Now you’ve softened it into:





That’s not the same thing.

Your original framing was:

About power asymmetry (stronger vs weaker),

About motivation (to steal),

About inevitability (every time, everywhere).


Now it’s:

Any war,

Any motive,

Any state,

Anywhere.


That’s a generic observation about the presence of conflict in human history, not a law of power or a reflection of China's future, or anything useful. Of course there’s always been violence somewhere. That doesn’t prove anything about how power always functions or how modern states will behave.

What you’ve done is move from making a claim about human nature and power to making a claim about statistical inevitability. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend it’s the same.

Also... if that’s your new hill to die on, fine. But then you’re no longer saying anything profound. You’re just describing that history has been violent, which no one disputes. The question is:
Is it always the strong taking from the weak, everywhere, every time, for loot? You haven’t proven that. You’ve dropped it.

So if you’re done moving the goalposts, we can have a real conversation, otherwise you’re just running from your own thesis.

Actually you have just misread it.

Misunderstood it completely




My point is throughout human history, countries that think they can, basically steal shit because they think they can get away with it.

And there isn’t even 50 years of our history where it hasn’t happened.

And without the us - we are weak as piss - and have a shit load of stuff worth stealing.

I don’t care if country a was good but powerful and didn’t invade anyone - when country b around the corner invaded whoever they wanted and took all their shit.

The point is countries can and will take your family jewels unless you can stop them. We had a big brother till recently…. Now we have zero idea if big brother will help.

Negan’s knocking on the door and he wants half our shit!!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Right... so now we’re miles from your original claim.

You began with this:





Now you’ve softened it into:





That’s not the same thing.

Your original framing was:

About power asymmetry (stronger vs weaker),

About motivation (to steal),

About inevitability (every time, everywhere).


Now it’s:

Any war,

Any motive,

Any state,

Anywhere.


That’s a generic observation about the presence of conflict in human history, not a law of power or a reflection of China's future, or anything useful. Of course there’s always been violence somewhere. That doesn’t prove anything about how power always functions or how modern states will behave.

What you’ve done is move from making a claim about human nature and power to making a claim about statistical inevitability. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend it’s the same.

Also... if that’s your new hill to die on, fine. But then you’re no longer saying anything profound. You’re just describing that history has been violent, which no one disputes. The question is:
Is it always the strong taking from the weak, everywhere, every time, for loot? You haven’t proven that. You’ve dropped it.

So if you’re done moving the goalposts, we can have a real conversation, otherwise you’re just running from your own thesis.

Um, sorry, I think you’re the one misunderstanding Kranky’s claim.

Impressive grasp of history though, I’ll give you that mate.

 

[RCAB]

Actually you have just misread it.

Misunderstood it completely




My point is throughout human history, countries that think they can, basically steal shit because they think they can get away with it.

And there isn’t even 50 years of our history where it hasn’t happened.

And without the us - we are weak as piss - and have a shit load of stuff worth stealing.

I don’t care if country a was good but powerful and didn’t invade anyone - when country b around the corner invaded whoever they wanted and took all their shit.

The point is countries can and will take your family jewels unless you can stop them. We had a big brother till recently…. Now we have zero idea if big brother will help.

Negan’s knocking on the door and he wants half our shit!!

I think I'm starting to understand where you get your history lessons from

Ok, just so we're clear... you've gone from:

“There has never been a 50-year period where a militarily stronger country didn’t invade a weaker one to steal their shit.”

To:

“There’s always some country somewhere taking stuff from someone because they think they can get away with it.”

And now to:

“Negan’s coming for our stuff unless we have a bigger bat.”

You’re not making a historical argument anymore. You’re describing a worldview, a vibe, a fear...The Walking Dead.. and then retrofitting history to validate it? That’s fine. It’s emotionally persuasive.


You say I misunderstood your point. Did I, or did you just change it?

Originally you framed it as a historical law. But when shown counterexamples, you dropped the law and replaced it with inevitability. And now, we’re down to folk wisdom:

“People take things unless they’re stopped.”

Sure. But that’s not a usable lens for understanding China, or history, or foreign policy. It’s just an axiom, one that’s true sometimes, not always, and never explains why some powers don’t act that way, even when they can.

So if this is about how to prepare for potential conflict, we can talk about that. We can also talk about the power dynamics in a multipolar world.

But I'm going to entertain you any further when you're going to continue to cosplay historian because you watched TWD and your argument is basically “Negan comes when there’s no big brother,” then all this “I study history” stuff was just set dressing.

And that’s fine... just say that.

 

[barreness]

Without the us wa is as well defended as it is without the rest of Australia as it is with

Regular infantry battalions 0
Regular armoured cavalry units 0
Regular tank units 0
Regular artillery units 0
Fighter squadrons 0

We do have more than our share of naval units but that’s a strategic location thing.

Oh and we have S.A.S - which is nice but not really anything to do more than pinprick an invasion.

It’s actually pathetic the size of our defence force. A handful of infantry battalions at partial strength.

1 RAR
2 RAR
3 RAR
5/7 RAR
8/9 RAR

That’s it.

Just quoting this one but referring your other posts

China has two aircraft carriers, one they bought unfinished from Ukraine and the other is essentially a slight advancement on that*. Stocked by aircraft that are untested in combat. Apparently they're trying to build a nuclear powered one

They do seek security over the first island chain and from there the 9 dash line, for reasons that have become even clearer over the last few months. The US empire seeks to dominate the globe and they will try to contain China, literally itching for a war. Food security has mostly been solved with the one child policy, energy security is the real dilemma for china. Oil in particular, can't run a military without oil

NW WA? what our precious red dirt? The only scenario I can imagine is if we cut them off, we would only do so to satisfy the US

China has existed for 5 millenia, their territorial acquisitions are minimal. The last war was a few week endeavour in Vietnam that they pulled out off(With US backing to support Pol Pot of all people). Empires are always bad but China is possibly the least worst I can think off





*Australia sold them one as well funnily enough after a floating casino deal fell through, there's a funny history here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)

 

[kranky al]

I think I'm starting to understand where you get your history lessons from

Ok, just so we're clear... you've gone from:





To:





And now to:

No I stated that there isn’t a fifty year period in human history where a weaker nation hasn’t been invaded by a stronger one.

You pulled a 20 year period - but a few years after that 20 year period the very nation you mentioned invaded another nation.

50-20 =30 30

But also with that same fifty year period there were other nations invaded elsewhere on earth by stronger nations.

You’re not making a historical argument anymore. You’re describing a worldview, a vibe, a fear...The Walking Dead.. and then retrofitting history to validate it? That’s fine. It’s emotionally persuasive.


You say I misunderstood your point. Did I, or did you just change it?

Originally you framed it as a historical law. But when shown counterexamples, you dropped the law and replaced it with inevitability. And now, we’re down to folk wisdom:

Nothing of the sort - I’m not dropping anything, I’m illustrating that throughout world history weaker nations have been constantly at risk of invasion by stronger nations. You are chucking a carringbush trying to make some weird point that because one strong nation chose not to - that you get to ignore the 2 or 5 or 10 instances in that 50 year period that did invade another country / state.

Sure. But that’s not a usable lens for understanding China, or history, or foreign policy. It’s just an axiom, one that’s true sometimes, not always, and never explains why some powers don’t act that way, even when they can.

It’s a good indication, especially when you ally it to their invasions of South Korea, India, Tibet, threatened invasion of Taiwan and their military buildup - which is the largest peacetime military buildup in world history.

So if this is about how to prepare for potential conflict, we can talk about that. We can also talk about the power dynamics in a multipolar world.

But I'm going to entertain you any further when you're going to continue to cosplay historian because you watched TWD and your argument is basically “Negan comes when there’s no big brother,” then all this “I study history” stuff was just set dressing.

And that’s fine... just say that.

Bring up TWD was flippant humour dude.

You must be Great fun at parties.

 

[kranky al]

Just quoting this one but referring your other posts

China has two aircraft carriers, one they bought unfinished from Ukraine and the other is essentially a slight advancement on that*. Stocked by aircraft that are untested in combat. Apparently they're trying to build a nuclear powered one

3 and they are building a fourth and plan to have 6 and 370 ward ships by 2030

Source: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/12/chinas-navy-6-aircraft-carriers-and-370-warships-by-2030/

MSN

It’s not just about carriers. It’s carrier groups. One single aircraft carrier might cost 15 billion bucks with planes.

But an aircraft carrier by itself is a target, it has to be surrounded by frigates, destroyers, subs, sub chasers, aegis style air warfare ships

That runs to more like 50 - 60 billion then there’s the costs to operate.

That’s one single carrier group.

They are planning on 6 carriers so given the size of their carriers, 2 to a group is 300 planes total.


That is global force projection capacity with redundancy. If all you want to do is defend the homeland you can build 750 fighter jets for the price of each carrier group. You can park them on land that can’t be sunk - 3 carrier groups gives you 300 fighter jets vs 2250 land based.

They do seek security over the first island chain and from there the 9 dash line, for reasons that have become even clearer over the last few months. The US empire seeks to dominate the globe and they will try to contain China, literally itching for a war. Food security has mostly been solved with the one child policy, energy security is the real dilemma for china. Oil in particular, can't run a military without oil

The Chinese plan on taking over from the us

NW WA? what our precious red dirt? The only scenario I can imagine is if we cut them off, we would only do so to satisfy the US

China has existed for 5 millenia, their territorial acquisitions are minimal. The last war was a few week endeavour in Vietnam that they pulled out off(With US backing to support Pol Pot of all people). Empires are always bad but China is possibly the least worst I can think off

They invaded South Korea, took an area more than half the size of Tasmania off India, they invaded Tibet and occupy the Uighurs as an invader, they have flat out said they are coming for Taiwan one day. They are in contention with other countries for the spratly islands are are militarily occupying and fortifying them.

They are undergoing the biggest peacetime military expansion in human history….

*Australia sold them one as well funnily enough after a floating casino deal fell through, there's a funny history here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)

Yeah dumb arse move.

 

[RCAB]

No I stated that there isn’t a fifty year period in human history where a weaker nation hasn’t been invaded by a stronger one.

You pulled a 20 year period - but a few years after that 20 year period the very nation you mentioned invaded another nation.

50-20 =30 30

But also with that same fifty year period there were other nations invaded elsewhere on earth by stronger nations.



Nothing of the sort - I’m not dropping anything, I’m illustrating that throughout world history weaker nations have been constantly at risk of invasion by stronger nations. You are chucking a carringbush trying to make some weird point that because one strong nation chose not to - that you get to ignore the 2 or 5 or 10 instances in that 50 year period that did invade another country / state.




It’s a good indication, especially when you ally it to their invasions of South Korea, India, Tibet, threatened invasion of Taiwan and their military buildup - which is the largest peacetime military buildup in world history.



Bring up TWD was flippant humour dude.

You must be Great fun at parties.

Kranky, we’ve gone in circles long enough.

You keep restating your revised claim (that there's never been a 50-year period anywhere on Earth without a stronger country invading a weaker one) as if that's what you originally said. It wasn’t.

You began with:

“There is not a single 50-year period in recorded human history where a militarily stronger nation hasn’t invaded a weaker nation to steal their shit.”

That’s a far more specific, directional claim (about power, motive, and inevitability) and I addressed it with counterexamples, context, and actual historical intervals.

You dismissed those examples not by disproving them, but by switching to a statistical inevitability argument:

“Somewhere, someone was invaded during that time — so I’m still right.”

If that’s your standard, then your claim becomes unfalsifiable. It’s like saying, “In every 50-year period, someone somewhere got sick — therefore all societies are doomed.”
It’s not analysis. It’s entropy dressed up as insight.

If your concern is geopolitical... say that. If you want to talk about deterrence theory, US decline, and China’s posture, I’m game. But if you're just going to repackage a vague pattern of human conflict as historical determinism, then yeah, I’m probably not great fun at your kind of party.

Thread's yours if you want it, I’ve made my case.

 

[Chief]

You keep restating your revised claim (that there's never been a 50-year period anywhere on Earth without a stronger country invading a weaker one) as if that's what you originally said. It wasn’t.

To be honest I interpreted it that way.