USA Is the USA the worst nation to exist since classical times?

Remove this Banner Ad

Point of order: Ukraine are being invaded; ergo, every able bodied person is being used to defend their country; having 50 year olds on the front line is only a tenable outcome for them due to desperation.
Yeh and they keep lowering the minimum, prisoners and 21yo's on the cards. Understandable as you say, desperation

Still not as bad as us using 18yo's for vietnam
China choosing to invade Taiwan, and conscripting 50 year olds to fight in a wider Pacific theatre - against America, against India, against Japan - is not an apples to apples comparison.

So, not rubbish.
India wil never get involved, doubt on Japan too. This is America trying to control the pacific, a foolish puruist of a dying hegemon. Also hypothetical at this point, China could do a slow takeover without open military action



edit sorry: The argument of demographics is a white replacment argument in disguise, look at who pushes it. The world is overpopulated and it will reduce one way or another, low birth rate is the nicest of them
 
What Modi would do - being the combination of right wing and opportunistic he is - is use China's distraction to take back some of the disputed border. That means that they have less force to exert on Taiwan, as they need to maintain that border almost twice as strong, or lose ground and face.

The prospect of fighting a war on either side of China - one in the mountains and one navally - would be something Xi would see as the worst possible outcome.

And face is everything in Chinese politics.
Don't think so, India has always leaned non aligned, they'll look for a trade profit from whichever side. Modi is a nationalist first and foremost, he's not fighting over some scraps in the himalayas for the liberal order


Here's the problem: in order to do this, America would have to pull back and walk back on decades of military infrastructure and precedent, and - most importantly - the military will not want to do it. Trump more than anything else needs the military on side; the reason his coup failed the first time round is because he couldn't actually spur the military to join in in part or in full.

People forget that within a dictatorship, you are still ostensibly at the whims of those with the guns: do what you want but the second they start to get discontent is the same second they begin contemplating a change of leader.
*all states, the state has has monopoly on violence, a farcade of two party democracy dosen't change that
And the military have been building opposite China for most of the past 30 years, and so have the military industrial complex. Withdrawing from all that will be... expensive politically; to this point, Trump has had the support of the NRA and weapons manufacturers. Do you really think they won't swing back round if he threatens to take away their favourite threat, 'reds under the bed'?
Yes, they'll fight china in an attempt to maintain their hegemon, and they'll lose. hopefully not in nukes but they do have a first strike policy
 
edit sorry: The argument of demographics is a white replacment argument in disguise, look at who pushes it. The world is overpopulated and it will reduce one way or another, low birth rate is the nicest of them
... sorry, what?

When I've seen this argument made, it's by theorists discussing the likelihood of China's military population continuing to grow, not population replacement. In general, they cite the failure of the One Child policy creating a situation in which there are less children, coupled with a larger wealthier middle class since the 90's in urban areas who put off marrying and having children until later in life; both having an effect on birth rates and population demographics, as the average (and median) citizen get older.

To describe this as any form of white replacement rhetoric is exceedingly dumb. It's not talking about a western nation (1), it's not talking about a rising number of non white peoples (2) and it's not even remotely considered a good or a bad thing, just a thing that has consequence for Chinas ability to project force.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

... sorry, what?

When I've seen this argument made, it's by theorists discussing the likelihood of China's military population continuing to grow, not population replacement. In general, they cite the failure of the One Child policy creating a situation in which there are less children, coupled with a larger wealthier middle class since the 90's in urban areas who put off marrying and having children until later in life; both having an effect on birth rates and population demographics, as the average (and median) citizen get older.

To describe this as any form of white replacement rhetoric is exceedingly dumb. It's not talking about a western nation (1), it's not talking about a rising number of non white peoples (2) and it's not even remotely considered a good or a bad thing, just a thing that has consequence for Chinas ability to project force.
Ok sorry, I wasn't accusing you of white replacement theory, just the argument is a derivative of that

It's a weak geopolitical argument that low key racists use that thinks your army size is reflective of your birth rate
 
Ok sorry, I wasn't accusing you of white replacement theory, just the argument is a derivative of that

It's a weak geopolitical argument that low key racists use that thinks your army size is reflective of your birth rate
I'm sorry, but I still don't see it. It's entirely to do with China needing to move soon to be certain of numerical supremecy, which - from reports of how their leaders think - is what they need to ensure victory or see America off.

I'd be fine with you going further into it - justifying your position some - rather than retreating for fear of offending me. If my position is rooted in white replacement, I'd like to know how.
 
I'm sorry, but I still don't see it. It's entirely to do with China needing to move soon to be certain of numerical supremecy, which - from reports of how their leaders think - is what they need to ensure victory or see America off.

I'd be fine with you going further into it - justifying your position some - rather than retreating for fear of offending me. If my position is rooted in white replacement, I'd like to know how.
Ok, so I come from the position that the world will depopulate one way or another, the good ways have mostly been burnt

The demographic argument suggests that you need a bunch of 18-25yo's before your country can defend itself, at least in proportion to your older people. Hence the DRAMA over low birth rates that's going on at the moment

China has like 50 milion 18-30yo's atm, it's of no concern. If they do proper socialism then the women are getting drafted and you double it.

There's 8 billion people on the planet, there was 1.7 billion at the start of WW1. Throwing people at the front has never been easier, so why do they do it? To encourage birth rates(or policies around that) because they're racist. The only way the economic system works is by constant growth and under a falling birth rate that requires immigrants, ergo demographic freak-out is racist

Well it makes sense in my head at least hahahahaha
 
Ok, so I come from the position that the world will depopulate one way or another, the good ways have mostly been burnt

The demographic argument suggests that you need a bunch of 18-25yo's before your country can defend itself, at least in proportion to your older people. Hence the DRAMA over low birth rates that's going on at the moment

China has like 50 milion 18-30yo's atm, it's of no concern. If they do proper socialism then the women are getting drafted and you double it.

There's 8 billion people on the planet, there was 1.7 billion at the start of WW1. Throwing people at the front has never been easier, so why do they do it? To encourage birth rates(or policies around that) because they're racist. The only way the economic system works is by constant growth and under a falling birth rate that requires immigrants, ergo demographic freak-out is racist

Well it makes sense in my head at least hahahahaha
If your - the universal your, not you barreness specifically - observation of a country's births/death rate posits that there is demographic change occurring - as in, statistically, your country is getting older - and this has an effect on the ways people behave in that country - as it will with China, as families tried to have boys during One Child to carry on the family name and support them in their old age, after that is the status quo societally in China and has been for a very long time - then making the observation that there's a demographic cliff coming which will have implications concerning the sustainable size of their military does not really interact with the argument you're making above.

I think I'm arguing A, and you're arguing B. We can both be correct, because neither argument actually encounters each other.

Now, the point is not to make the observation that China is short manpower now; they clearly aren't, and have been building up to a potential confrontation for at least the last 20 years. The point is that if they don't move within the next 5-10 years, they cannot count on endless growth fuelling their economy nor a population boom to go alongside it; if that point has already been crossed - and the vids/articles I saw this in suggested it might've - then it might already be too late for Xi if he has territorial ambitions. While Ukraine can use all able-bodied people to fight for them - as in, a total war setting economically and socially - China cannot afford such simply to invade Taiwan; they need to be able to do as the US do and project force without completely pivoting their economic structure to fuel their military industrial complex.

The opportunity cost of war escalates based on a myriad of factors, and an aging population is one of them.

In short, it's not just less people actively entering into the army. It's a recontextualisation of their whole economic structure to cater for an older population making war harder to accomplish, let alone successfully.
 
Guardian has an article discussing the terrible US maternal mortality rate, the highest in the OECD. The rate went as high as 32.9 deaths per 100,000 births over the Covid years, and last year it has fallen to 23.8, closer to historical norms. Folks of color are worse off than the average. For comparison our is 5.8 per 100,000 births.

There are so many things that contribute to this, not having a universal health scheme is probably the main one. Poor antenatal care, lack of parental leave, racism, stupidity, lack of compassion, violence, drug use are all possible contributing factors. Remember the US spends about the same on health care as the entire rest of the world put together. They clearly are not using the 18% of GDP they spend on health very well.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top