Yes, but war has always been a great way to loose men, which would bring the population back into balance. And remember the whole reason for the gender imbalance is the one child policy, which was put in place to reduce the population of the country. That said, going to war (especially with Russia) seems like a damn stupid thing for China to do, but who’s to say what PRC leadership will be thinking in 2019?
From reading and listening to tiresome Leftist whankers in Europe, mate, where the fuck do you think we got the fucking impression from.
Evidently we’re going to get into some tedious No True Scotsman sort of debate, but evidently there are Leftist whankers who are not in their right mind. Note, I did not say “take over the role of the US” so do try to argue on what I actually said (dreaming of an EU that can do the pet For Policy work that the various Left whankers want).
Whatever, the Hard Left has lots of flavours mate, but again I didn;t write that there were Hard Left or Left whankers looking for US hegomon role, bloody well pay fucking attention, eh?
I’m not very worried about the Turks or the Germans, thank you very much. please go and bomb somebody else
Sure. It’s a big reason why we can spend our tax dollars on health care instead of the military.
My tongue is only partially in my cheek at the moment because there is in fact some truth to this, IMHO.
I meant, since you seem not to have gotten it, who is the bloody you you refer to?
Don’t think leadership. Think youngish single man in relatively high position, staring at a glass ceiling of people who won’t die for another 20 years, who gets a little frustrated with life… and does something stupid. To show that he’s really very capable. And he’s just not as smart as he thinks he is.
China is trying to expand across Africa, also. It won’t work well, I don’t think, but there’s something going on there, and it might wind up involving mass executions or something equally stupid one day, as well.
Do they need us? Oh, I’m sure Georgia would be happy if we just left their side of the hemisphere. And so would India.
History shows that every time we decide to disarm and let the military degrade, it’s a really, really stupid choice, long term.
You have an interesting even an astounding ability to pass any given bit of news through a filter to render it for the conclusion you desire.
The opposition party won a landslide. Does that mean The Japanese decided they don’t desire American military cover any more? Maybe, or maybe other factors were drivers, such as the parlous state of the economy.
From the very link: Voters at polling stations told CNN they wanted change and wanted to give new leaders a chance, even if they were not sure what policies would replace the ones that have run the world’s second-largest economy for more than a generation.
Also from the NYT article:
Really? Would you care to place any large wagers on your assertion here? Like the ones you didn’t want to make concerning the inevitable invasion of Iran by the evil Bush Administration for the last several years? 
Directly or indirectly? The answer is that the US (and our allies) are so powerful that we and they provides indirect protection that simply can’t be quantified. It’s Pax Americana…enjoy it while it lasts. It’s going to seriously suck when the US cuts back and there is a scramble to fill the void left by us.
Or, maybe everything will be all goodness and like once the Evil American Empire™ has finally folded it’s hand and allowed the good people of Earth the opportunity to work and play nice together, once the Jackboots(ARR) of our imperialist war machine is off of their collective necks.
Take your pick.
-XT
Also, the 50,000 strong US presence has already been reconsidered. This number includes 20,000 or so Marines in Okinawa, of which around 8,000 will be moved to Guam by the middle of the next decade. There’s even talk of moving just about all the Marines out of Okinawa.
Stationing troops in Japan (or not) has little to do with Japan’s defense these days. Requesting the withdrawal of those troops doesn’t mean that Japan doesn’t need or want US military protection, or that they are planning on going it alone, as BG implied.
-XT
IIRC, it’s not the troops stationed in Japan that are providing protection, it’s the ships sailing the seas *around *Japan that are providing the protection.
Yes, but would Japan really be any less safe without those ships? Their only credible military threat is from China, and the new government apparently wants to make nice with China.
I’d say military protection is a precondition for making nice.
Canada has no realistic military protection from the U.S. That doesn’t stop us from being friends.
Is it really…? Do you know anything about European politics or do you make things up as you go?
Canada made nice with the U.S. when it was backed by the entire might of the British Empire.
I didn’t mention “bloody”, but the “you” referred to the US, since that was in the OP. And this being a mainly US message board I assumed you were a US citizen.
And with “you”, I meant the OP in this case.
I think some of the people in this thread have a very simplistic, almost cartoonish view of how countries deal with each other.
It doesn’t matter who happens to be expansionist at this moment, because the world is not static. It changes, and how it changes depends an awful lot on hard diplomacy, overt and subtle threats, and force projections. If the U.S. military vanished tomorrow, it doesn’t necessarily mean a war will break out the next day. But countries will push harder on each other jockeying for power. Countries that aren’t expansionist now may decide to do so once they realize their actions are no longer constrained.
Look at the actions of Hugo Chavez. He’s already threatened his neighbors with military force. Today, he has to ask himself, “how far can I go without provoking an American response?”. If he no longer has to ask that question, how much further will he go?
The Falkland Islands war happened because the Argentinian leadership convinced itself that Britain had no will or even ability to take serious casualties to recover that territory. It took British military weakness to trigger that conflict.
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he was convinced that the U.S. didn’t have the stomach for a fight.
Today, Russian submarines and surface vessels are threatening Canadian territory because Russia wants to control the oil resources and possibly the Northwest Passage. Canada has had to respond by ordering new military vessels and increase patrols in the region to demonstrate its willingness to defend its territory. That’s how power politics are played. But the biggest factor keeping the Russians from simply taking our territory is that the U.S. is our bestest buddy.
If the U.S. lost its ability to project power overseas, the world would very quickly become a much more dangerous, much uglier place.
But this is typical of the peacetime mindset - once war recedes, it becomes easy to convince yourself to disarm. The U.S. found itself years behind its enemies at the start of WWII, and had to train the first round of soldiers with wooden guns because there weren’t enough to go around. By the end of WWII, the U.S’ had the largest military the world had ever seen. But within six years, that military machine was so broken down the U.S. had trouble managing the Korean war.
And here we are again, telling ourselves that peace is at hand so long as we just disarm ourselves. If that happens, there will be similar results.