Should the US (with UN aid) invade China?

[Cedoria]

If a world war really worth it though?
Chinas economy is not entirely on manufacturing. China is a top producer of many ores. I do think we can become more independent from china but it is not realistic to assume that there would be short term lost from China going away. U.S businesses have invested heavily in China and if China falls then their investment is gone. It would have a long term impact on the economy.

They made the decision to give this totalitarian state power, the sooner it is taken away the better. A bulletin may never be fired but something needs to change.

Change has a habit of coming when things can no longer naturally continue as they are.

I don't know what will change in China's future, just that it will happen and that the US will fuck it up further if they try to intervene and force it.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

They made the decision to give this totalitarian state power, the sooner it is taken away the better. A bulletin may never be fired but something needs to change.

Change has a habit of coming when things can no longer naturally continue as they are.

I don't know what will change in China's future, just that it will happen and that the US will fuck it up further if they try to intervene and force it.

How so ?

The assumption is that what ever the action, it would warrant further action unnessecary.

[USS Monitor]

[tab=20]We should all know that the PRC right now is a little ... special. In fact, many might consider it a threat to Western civilization. Militaristic thinking and, well, the American spirit influenced me to form the opinion that China; Taiwan, Mongolia, and Tibet not included, should be put down for the greater good.

FUCK NO!!!!

That is not the greater good. That is evil. It would cause devastating loss of life on both sides, on a scale not seen since WWII, and possibly even worse than WWII. In other words, it would destroy a good chunk of the Western civilization that you are allegedly trying to protect.

If the US is the one invading China and not China attacking us, we wouldn't get a lot of international support. There's a very real possibility that the UN would side with China.

And siding with China would be the right thing to do. China's far from perfect, and I will be glad when Xi Jinping is out of power, but launching an unprovoked invasion is a whole other level of wrong.

Do you know what the first charge leveled against the Nazis in Nuremberg was? "Crimes Against Peace," because they started the war. What you are advocating is the same shit that Nazi leaders were executed for.

[Grenartia]

War is not going to solve any of this unless you’re willing to sacrifice likely millions of American lives to achieve some sort of Pyrrhic victory where you collapse the global economy in the process and likely western society in the process. Unless there’s a smarter way to transfer Chinese economic power to the west without killing ourselves in the process then everything else is a non viable solution.

China isint that integral to the economy, and if a full war happened it would be felt much less anyway as a war economy would be the norm. As in tightly state controlled and producing anyways, costs later.


As for the transfer the “hardest” way would be for large countries to say either trade with me or China, but that would cause many issues and be quite extreme. Best case scenario.

North America works much more closely economically, sound America is invested and renovated heavily by those North America, (also democracy) Europe slowly phases out trade with China, that would leave the battleground as Africa. With both sides pooling resources and vying for support Africa would enter a growing “factory” phase. Oceania should be compared to Europe

Also a new space race would be helpful.

A new space race is probably the only thing that can weaken China without igniting WW3. If it wants to Belt and Road its way into space colonies, per the Outer Space Treaty, it cannot claim part of any body for its own territory. Which means any of its citizens it sends out to exploit space resources cannot be kept under its thumb like they can be back on Earth. And even if the OST gets rendered obsolete in its current form, any Chinese colonists looking to emulate Hong Kong could rip a few pages from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

[Deacarsia]

No.

[Hammer Britannia]

Does it look like most of the world wants Fallout IRL? No thanks

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

War is not going to solve any of this unless you’re willing to sacrifice likely millions of American lives to achieve some sort of Pyrrhic victory where you collapse the global economy in the process and likely western society in the process. Unless there’s a smarter way to transfer Chinese economic power to the west without killing ourselves in the process then everything else is a non viable solution.

China isint that integral to the economy, and if a full war happened it would be felt much less anyway as a war economy would be the norm. As in tightly state controlled and producing anyways, costs later.


As for the transfer the “hardest” way would be for large countries to say either trade with me or China, but that would cause many issues and be quite extreme. Best case scenario.

North America works much more closely economically, sound America is invested and renovated heavily by those North America, (also democracy) Europe slowly phases out trade with China, that would leave the battleground as Africa. With both sides pooling resources and vying for support Africa would enter a growing “factory” phase. Oceania should be compared to Europe

Also a new space race would be helpful.

China, is, unfortunately, very integral to our economy, how much is the average American willing to spend on their consumer products? $100 more? $1,000? $5,000? The average American cannot affford, nor are they willing spend hundreds or thousand of dollars more than they current spend on even the basic consumer essentials like ovens, microwaves, TVs, computers, cell phones, washing machines, dryers, etc.. You aren’t going to get the majority of Americans to not only dig for those rare earth minerals out of the Earth but produce them into consumer products without raising prices so astronomically that the average American can no longer afford them. You might as well advocate for an AnPrim society at that rate. You’d collapse the whole economy.

[Redternetia]

To accomplish what? Sending millions of poor folks to their deaths for the sake of capitalists? With the possibility of nuclear war mixed in between some of the largest nations on the planet? What a stable world this would create!
And I *love* this title. "With UN aid/approval", as if that is what ultimately justifies some sort of "humane war". Shame on ignorant ideologues who would support destroying peace.

[USS Monitor]

China isint that integral to the economy, and if a full war happened it would be felt much less anyway as a war economy would be the norm. As in tightly state controlled and producing anyways, costs later.


As for the transfer the “hardest” way would be for large countries to say either trade with me or China, but that would cause many issues and be quite extreme. Best case scenario.

North America works much more closely economically, sound America is invested and renovated heavily by those North America, (also democracy) Europe slowly phases out trade with China, that would leave the battleground as Africa. With both sides pooling resources and vying for support Africa would enter a growing “factory” phase. Oceania should be compared to Europe

Also a new space race would be helpful.

A new space race is probably the only thing that can weaken China without igniting WW3. If it wants to Belt and Road its way into space colonies, per the Outer Space Treaty, it cannot claim part of any body for its own territory. Which means any of its citizens it sends out to exploit space resources cannot be kept under its thumb like they can be back on Earth. And even if the OST gets rendered obsolete in its current form, any Chinese colonists looking to emulate Hong Kong could rip a few pages from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Weakening China shouldn't be the top goal anyway.

Encouraging them to improve their human rights should be the top goal. Weakening them doesn't necessarily do that. Sometimes when countries are struggling, it just makes leadership crack down harder because they're scared of losing control.

The fact that so many people in the West talk about the need to stop China rather than the need for China to improve is part of why China is so hostile towards us and so difficult to negotiate with. It's disappointing when China responds with bullshit posturing -- and they really do a lot of bullshit posturing -- but it's very much a two-way conflict where both sides need to make changes if we want to get along better.

China dominating the world stage would be fine and dandy if they had better human rights. But the fact that they have a shitty authoritarian government is a problem. The shitty authoritarian government will still be a problem even if China's international influence is weakened.

So weakening China doesn't actually solve the problem.

As for how to make China improve, that's tricky. The people who are in the best position to bring change to China are the Chinese themselves.
Change from within is not going to happen overnight, but it is very possible in the long term. Things were better when Hu Jintao was in power -- not perfect, but definitely better than now. Xi Jinping isn't immortal, so he's not going to be running the show forever. If someone that isn't a raging ass gets into power after Xi is gone, things could improve.

Perhaps the best strategy for those of us that are not Chinese is to get our own houses in order, strengthen our own countries (in ways that don't rely on Chinese help), and see where things go. Push back if China gets expansionist, but don't push too hard about what happens inside their borders.

By the time we are building space colonies, the political landscape will probably be different from what it is today, so it doesn't seem that useful to speculate about how the present-day Chinese government would handle space colonies. The present-day government doesn't have space colonies and we don't know what the government will be like in the future.

[Page]

There is no scenario in which a full scale US-China war doesn't go nuclear. Perhaps small skirmishes in the South Pacific can be kept from escalation, but the moment one makes an incursion on the other's soil, the nukes are going to fly.

Even if a nuclear holocaust was not inevitable, a conventional war would be quite terrible on its own. It would be a meat grinder the likes of which we have never seen, and would certainly come to exceed the Eastern Front of WW2, the deadliest conflict in human history in destruction and casualties.

There is no winning for anyone, so please set aside these jingoistic fantasies.

[New haven america]

To accomplish what? Sending millions of poor folks to their deaths for the sake of capitalists? With the possibility of nuclear war mixed in between some of the largest nations on the planet? What a stable world this would create!
And I *love* this title. "With UN aid/approval", as if that is what ultimately justifies some sort of "humane war". Shame on ignorant ideologues who would support destroying peace.

China's already doing that with their death camps in the eastern half of the country though.

[ArranVidLand]

Sorry my friend but I think you're too biased towards the USA since you were probably born there and some of the things you have written about China sound like things the American Media like CNN, C Span and Fox News would say. You say that the USA would never stoop too low in terms of creating humanitarian crises like China has done but what about the humanitarian crisis caused by Obama and his sickening NATO buddies in Libya when Colonel Gadaffi was Leader? for some reason Wikipedia, Brittannica & the Western Media don't seem to cogitate about the issue deeply enough and they say that NATO attacked Colonel Gadaffi because he 'was attacking his own people'...how about the fact that Gadaffi wanted to create a new currency in Africa made of pure gold (not paper money) to rival the US dollar? how about the vast oil in Libya? doesn't the American and British Media think that those reasons sound more plausible as to why NATO brutally attacked Libya and let the brutal NTC group in? Under Gadaffi, Libya's literacy rate went up to around 80% from 20%, he allowed excellent education facilities and he created a healthy water system for his people...and the Western Media calls him a 'brutal dictator'? Ok, he wasn't perfect and he wasn't an angel, but in truth no leader is perfect...the Western Media are putting their typical spin on it just like all media do. How about when the USA and UK invaded Iraq because Bush said there were WMDs even though there were none? They talk about Saddam Hussein being like another brutal dictator...and while he again was no angel, he was no brutal dictator...the Western Media fail to talk about Saddam Hussein wanting to trade his oil in Euros rather than US Dollars...maybe that's why the USA and UK attacked him because they wanted control of his oil? The USA seems to be looking for global domination, just like China, so you can't say China is very bad for wanting global domination when USA is doing the same thing without trying to alert its citizens of that fact. The USA has thrived on Imperialism as has the UK. Yes, Russia and China are not angels and they do human rights abuses, but the USA also does them too. Was it really right of Trump to take his military out of the Turkey Border Zone? there were ISIS prisoners in there and I fear that many might have escaped out of their prison cells since the Kurdish Forces who were keeping them in check are now fleeing or being decimated by Turkish Forces. Of course the USA is going to favour Turkey more than Kurdish Forces, that's because Turkey is a NATO ally and NATO allies stick together like birds in a feather. The Western Media and Turkey call the PKK Kurdish Forces as 'terrorists' but they seem more like Freedom Fighters to me, just like the LTTE in Ceylon were. They make that same argument about Mandela, whether he was a freedom fighter or a terrorist. Unfortunately I've yet to see Media that is purely unbiased. The Russian Media does show the truth happening in the West but it also obviously doesn't show the truth about what's happening in Russia. The opposite thing happens in US and UK Media, they lie about what's really happening in the Middle East but they tell the truth about natural disasters like Earthquakes and stuff...things that don't really affect US Foreign Policy. I also used to fall for the UK media lies, when I was around 15 I had to do a speech so I did a speech about Mugabe and Zimbabwe but I got all my information from the so-called 'Independent' Newspaper which is a brand of Newspaper in England and I got all my facts from there...only later did I realize that the Newspaper were against Mugabe and they were pro for Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangarai because Morgan wanted UK interference and control in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe used to be a British Colony (Rhodesia). Trump says that Iran is like a threat to the existence of the World...really? Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran yet all the other European countries stuck to the Iran nuclear deal because they knew that it was actually a good way of limiting Iran's nuclear capability...yet Trump threatens to punish the European countries for sticking to the Iran nuclear deal? President Ahmadinejad and his successor (I've forgot his name) have looked after Iran for years, just like any leader would do (barring the suspicious media blackout that happened recently). Again the NATO Forces are saying that Syrian President Bashar used the Nazi Chemical Weapon, Sarin, on his own people...do you think a long-time leader of Syria would do that to his own people? isn't it more plausible that a terrorist group who are attacking with the help of NATO are using Sarin to overthrow Bashar? yet the Western Media says that Bashar is using Sarin on his own people, it sounds so silly. Long time Presidents in the Middle East, like Hosni Mubarrak who ruled over Egypt for around 40 years, have either been forced to resign (like Hosni and Ahmadinejad) or have been killed (Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gadaffi) and US Foreign Policy and NATO Policy is a link...plus Israel being heavily funded with Nuclear Weapons by the US Government, seems like a strategic foothold in the Middle East...the USA is fine with Israel having Nuclear Weapons but not fine with Iran having them...crazy. The USA have propped up South Korea and have made South Korea into a booming capitalist state and if the USA could they would invade North Korea and force it into a US-controlled Capitalist State and they would either overthrow or kill Kim Jong-Un...they would pillage the resources of North Korea...that's something the Western Media doesn't tell you often. However, Russia and China have been protecting North Korea for decades. Sure, I guess you could say that China and Russia secretly want North Korea to invade South Korea and force it into a Communist State but can you see that China, Russia and the USA are all as bad as each other?

[Grenartia]

A new space race is probably the only thing that can weaken China without igniting WW3. If it wants to Belt and Road its way into space colonies, per the Outer Space Treaty, it cannot claim part of any body for its own territory. Which means any of its citizens it sends out to exploit space resources cannot be kept under its thumb like they can be back on Earth. And even if the OST gets rendered obsolete in its current form, any Chinese colonists looking to emulate Hong Kong could rip a few pages from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Weakening China shouldn't be the top goal anyway.

Encouraging them to improve their human rights should be the top goal. Weakening them doesn't necessarily do that. Sometimes when countries are struggling, it just makes leadership crack down harder because they're scared of losing control.

The fact that so many people in the West talk about the need to stop China rather than the need for China to improve is part of why China is so hostile towards us and so difficult to negotiate with. It's disappointing when China responds with bullshit posturing -- and they really do a lot of bullshit posturing -- but it's very much a two-way conflict where both sides need to make changes if we want to get along better.

China dominating the world stage would be fine and dandy if they had better human rights. But the fact that they have a shitty authoritarian government is a problem. The shitty authoritarian government will still be a problem even if China's international influence is weakened.

So weakening China doesn't actually solve the problem.

As for how to make China improve, that's tricky. The people who are in the best position to bring change to China are the Chinese themselves.
Change from within is not going to happen overnight, but it is very possible in the long term. Things were better when Hu Jintao was in power -- not perfect, but definitely better than now. Xi Jinping isn't immortal, so he's not going to be running the show forever. If someone that isn't a raging ass gets into power after Xi is gone, things could improve.

Perhaps the best strategy for those of us that are not Chinese is to get our own houses in order, strengthen our own countries (in ways that don't rely on Chinese help), and see where things go. Push back if China gets expansionist, but don't push too hard about what happens inside their borders.

By the time we are building space colonies, the political landscape will probably be different from what it is today, so it doesn't seem that useful to speculate about how the present-day Chinese government would handle space colonies. The present-day government doesn't have space colonies and we don't know what the government will be like in the future.

As long as China is strong, it has no need nor desire to be less authoritarian. See: the persecution of the Uyghurs, the current situation in Hong Kong, its imperialism in SE Asia, etc.

China has never been more prosperous than it is now, and it shows no signs of becoming less of an authoritarian shithole. If anything, its becoming more of one.

[Nazariles]

Uh, nope. Even though I am open quite open about my intense distaste for the PRC`s Semi-Orwellian dictatorship, I think the US should not assume the role as the neoconservative "crusader for democracy" again as they did in 2003 and 2011. A Sino-American War would obviously be quite devastating and could potential trigger a new world conflict. Imagine if Russia comes to save China`s bum if the US ever dare to launch a war? No, thanks. And we don't even know what the Chinese military is really capable of. I imagine that they will test out their new secretive weapons under an eventual military conflict with the US.

I am no pacificist, but Humanity will never benefit from a massive world war. Let us not be fools and harvest hate amongst us! Only foolish prepubertal youngsters dream of mass slaughtering (and some people in the upper estates of society).

[The Holy Therns]

Weeeell... who was using that planet, anyway?

[New haven america]

Sorry my friend but I think you're too biased towards the USA since you were probably born there and some of the things you have written about China sound like things the American Media like CNN, C Span and Fox News would say. You say that the USA would never stoop too low in terms of creating humanitarian crises like China has done but what about the humanitarian crisis caused by Obama and his sickening NATO buddies in Libya when Colonel Gadaffi was Leader? for some reason Wikipedia, Brittannica & the Western Media don't seem to cogitate about the issue deeply enough and they say that NATO attacked Colonel Gadaffi because he 'was attacking his own people'...how about the fact that Gadaffi wanted to create a new currency in Africa made of pure gold (not paper money) to rival the US dollar? how about the vast oil in Libya? doesn't the American and British Media think that those reasons sound more plausible as to why NATO brutally attacked Libya and let the brutal NTC group in? Under Gadaffi, Libya's literacy rate went up to around 80% from 20%, he allowed excellent education facilities and he created a healthy water system for his people...and the Western Media calls him a 'brutal dictator'? Ok, he wasn't perfect and he wasn't an angel, but in truth no leader is perfect...the Western Media are putting their typical spin on it just like all media do. How about when the USA and UK invaded Iraq because Bush said there were WMDs even though there were none? They talk about Saddam Hussein being like another brutal dictator...and while he again was no angel, he was no brutal dictator...the Western Media fail to talk about Saddam Hussein wanting to trade his oil in Euros rather than US Dollars...maybe that's why the USA and UK attacked him because they wanted control of his oil? The USA seems to be looking for global domination, just like China, so you can't say China is very bad for wanting global domination when USA is doing the same thing without trying to alert its citizens of that fact. The USA has thrived on Imperialism as has the UK. Yes, Russia and China are not angels and they do human rights abuses, but the USA also does them too. Was it really right of Trump to take his military out of the Turkey Border Zone? there were ISIS prisoners in there and I fear that many might have escaped out of their prison cells since the Kurdish Forces who were keeping them in check are now fleeing or being decimated by Turkish Forces. Of course the USA is going to favour Turkey more than Kurdish Forces, that's because Turkey is a NATO ally and NATO allies stick together like birds in a feather. The Western Media and Turkey call the PKK Kurdish Forces as 'terrorists' but they seem more like Freedom Fighters to me, just like the LTTE in Ceylon were. They make that same argument about Mandela, whether he was a freedom fighter or a terrorist. Unfortunately I've yet to see Media that is purely unbiased. The Russian Media does show the truth happening in the West but it also obviously doesn't show the truth about what's happening in Russia. The opposite thing happens in US and UK Media, they lie about what's really happening in the Middle East but they tell the truth about natural disasters like Earthquakes and stuff...things that don't really affect US Foreign Policy. I also used to fall for the UK media lies, when I was around 15 I had to do a speech so I did a speech about Mugabe and Zimbabwe but I got all my information from the so-called 'Independent' Newspaper which is a brand of Newspaper in England and I got all my facts from there...only later did I realize that the Newspaper were against Mugabe and they were pro for Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangarai because Morgan wanted UK interference and control in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe used to be a British Colony (Rhodesia). Trump says that Iran is like a threat to the existence of the World...really? Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran yet all the other European countries stuck to the Iran nuclear deal because they knew that it was actually a good way of limiting Iran's nuclear capability...yet Trump threatens to punish the European countries for sticking to the Iran nuclear deal? President Ahmadinejad and his successor (I've forgot his name) have looked after Iran for years, just like any leader would do (barring the suspicious media blackout that happened recently). Again the NATO Forces are saying that Syrian President Bashar used the Nazi Chemical Weapon, Sarin, on his own people...do you think a long-time leader of Syria would do that to his own people? isn't it more plausible that a terrorist group who are attacking with the help of NATO are using Sarin to overthrow Bashar? yet the Western Media says that Bashar is using Sarin on his own people, it sounds so silly. Long time Presidents in the Middle East, like Hosni Mubarrak who ruled over Egypt for around 40 years, have either been forced to resign (like Hosni and Ahmadinejad) or have been killed (Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gadaffi) and US Foreign Policy and NATO Policy is a link...plus Israel being heavily funded with Nuclear Weapons by the US Government, seems like a strategic foothold in the Middle East...the USA is fine with Israel having Nuclear Weapons but not fine with Iran having them...crazy. The USA have propped up South Korea and have made South Korea into a booming capitalist state and if the USA could they would invade North Korea and force it into a US-controlled Capitalist State and they would either overthrow or kill Kim Jong-Un...they would pillage the resources of North Korea...that's something the Western Media doesn't tell you often. However, Russia and China have been protecting North Korea for decades. Sure, I guess you could say that China and Russia secretly want North Korea to invade South Korea and force it into a Communist State but can you see that China, Russia and the USA are all as bad as each other?

You know, there's these things called "Paragraph Breaks."

Use them, love them.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

We don't have the resources to invade China without greatly compromising our economic situation, and even if we do, what are we doing? We're killing millions, subjecting our own forces to death, nukes may begin their destructive flight across the earth, and the world's most populous state is in disarray. What would we gain? We'd be killing some to liberate others.

Better dead than red

You say that, but your tune would change as soon as the horriors of war would be on full display.

[Australian rePublic]

The UN? You actually expect the UN to do something which isn't completely usless?
The UN is a glorified joke

[Satuga]

No. Better Dead than Red! Death is a preferable alternative to communism!

You might grow up and get a life first...before you cite "Death".

This is a Liberty Prime line from the game Fallout, I'm assuming neither of you played it.

[Satuga]

The USA have propped up South Korea and have made South Korea into a booming capitalist state and if the USA could they would invade North Korea and force it into a US-controlled Capitalist State and they would either overthrow or kill Kim Jong-Un...they would pillage the resources of North Korea...that's something the Western Media doesn't tell you often. However, Russia and China have been protecting North Korea for decades. Sure, I guess you could say that China and Russia secretly want North Korea to invade South Korea and force it into a Communist State but can you see that China, Russia and the USA are all as bad as each other?

Resources? What resources? If you couldn't tell NK is a very poor country with very little in the way of resources they have some metal and agriculture, as well as some zinc. But that is nowhere near enough resources for a resource war, the US would be at a loss of resources if they did that. So where are you getting the "they would" from it should be a "they might" instead.

[Cuba-Venezuela]

Everyone: 'if us invades china it will get nuked...'


MEANWHILE IN KASHMIR

[Page]

The UN? You actually expect the UN to do something which isn't completely usless?
The UN is a glorified joke

And China is not only part of the UN, it's a security council member.

[Lone survivers]

Will this nonsense-thread go on even longer ? For everyone not driven by a mind of an six-year-old child it is absolutely clear that 1) the US has absolutely no rights (concerning international law) to invade China, 2) China is one of the nuclear powers, not some third-world-shithole like Afghanistan, which 3) will definitely end in a war devastating a big part of the world, if not the whole.
So please, all you "Muricans", awake from your wet dreams of "we are so great, we can do whatever we want", pay your debts (which I doubt you can), especially to China and the UN, and forget of this ridiculous so-called "discussion".

[Lone survivers]

You might grow up and get a life first...before you cite "Death".

This is a Liberty Prime line from the game Fallout, I'm assuming neither of you played it.

Well, maybe; but in fact it´s a phrase from the "cold war" (Lieber tot als rot) and has been around since before "Nazi Germany" came to power (in the 1930ies).
I´m assuming you´re not old enough to know much of this aeras.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Operation Bay of Flying Pigs.