Not quite GD material, but I felt that Orson Scott Card had a pretty good treatment of a possible global war scenario, given a couple of relatively implausible starting scenarios (namely, a global pact against an alien aggressor for many many years that was very fragile at its core, and a defensive technology that made most nuclear warfare obsolete). But he handled a conflict based around Indian/Chinese conflict, with a China that not far in the future had risen to global prominence and had the weight of manpower and manufacturing to invade Thailand/India in a territorial grab, and a united Muslim front with a religious/evangelically inspired military leadership that also makes territorial grabs at historical enemies.
Really, I don’t think if things got out of hand anybody would start nuking. It’d be suicide, nearly instantly, to launch a nuke at another nuclear armed opponent, and near-suicide to launch anything at all with so many potential enemy countries with nukes. Mutually Assured Destruction, I think, nearly rules out that possibility.
I think it’s highly likely that a few unfortunate precipitating events could drag the wider middle east and the US in to a large conflict that leads towards a major power getting involved on the other side, and at that point all bets are off.
Almost certainly there will be another ‘world war’…or another major war that history looks back and calls a ‘world war’. Lets just hope it isn’t in OUR lifetimes, as its probably going to be a nasty one.
:rolleyes: I’m with Lemur866 on this…your scenario has about the same likely-hood as a snow balls chances in the hottest part of hell.
The World™ is going to go to war with the US over CO2? Why not China (who I understand is poised to surpass the US this year or early next in CO2 emissions) or India? Also, doesn’t it strike you as a bit silly to go to war over an environmental issue when the likely outcome would be…the complete destruction of the environment??
As for our ‘expanding nuclear capabilities’…give me a break. I can’t see EUROPE going to war with the US over this issue. Its absurd. Our maintaining military presence all over the globe? Again, I can see SOME countries not being happy with this…but a large coalition of nations that actually matter militarily?? :dubious:
I’m sorry, I’m sure this is a fond dream of your’s (and obviously Der Trihs too ), something to fantasize over on those cold nights…but lets keep it real. The entire world is NOT going to go to war with the evil US, destroying it and bring peace, happiness and light and ushering in a new golden, America free age. Its not going to happen.
What wound you up? The fact that you are resorting to ad hominem arguments shows you don’t have much confidence in your beliefs. Your attacks are also baseless, I have no hope that the US is destroyed.
I am concerned, however, about the increasing proclivity for the US to go its own way. Our popularity in Great Britain and western europe is on the wane because of Iraq and the Kyoto accords. Relations with Mexico are threatened because of immigration, the embargo on Cuba has never been popular in South America and Chavez is stirring up trouble in Venezuela. The US is virtually alone in supporting Israel.
In the long term China and India will be competing with the US for access to oil and other raw materials. As their domestic market grows they will be less dependent on exporting to the US.
You say that the US maintains no bases where they are not wanted, but there is a difference between what the govt wants and what the people want. The US has interfered before in internal affairs of countries to install or support friendly leaders that do not reflect the views of their people. I am not sure that our allies will support us doing that in the future.
Do I see a “US vs the world” conflict happening soon? no, but if we do not change how we deal with the rest of the world it may be inevitable.
China and India have 4 and 3 times population of the US respectively, so some may feel that they have a ways to go before they must cut their per-capita CO2 emissions.
I am a bit confused by the posters who complain that the US is perceived as “the source of all evil in the world” (which I don’t believe by the way) and then in the next breath say that there is no way that the world will gang up on the US. Pick a viewpoint and stick with it.
Well, I’m certainly relieved to hear you don’t wish the US destroyed. My comment was aimed more at Der than you, but the comment that the entire world would attack the US was just too absurd to let it go comment free.
If I hadn’t heard that cry of ‘wolf!’ for decades it would carry more weight. I remember in the 70’s when in college people talking about the US ‘going our own way’ and the distressing lack of popularity of the US in Europe…blah blah blah. As for our relationship in Central and South America…I don’t see that its EVERY been what one would call high, nor do I think that its decreasing. Its always been rocky, with periods where it dips and then recovers (such as it ever is recovered).
Regardless of Kyoto, America’s popularity or lack their of in Europe or our own hemisphere, etc, I don’t see any indications that The World™ would or COULD attack the US in any kind of concerted way. The Euro’s are too timid to ever contemplate such a thing (and for global warming? :dubious: ), Central and South America don’t have the means (even if they all had the desire)…which leaves the more likely threats of the Middle East and China. Now, had you said THAT I’d say its plausable…though still unlikely that any of them would confront the US directly in a military way.
No doubt about it…at least with respect to competing with us for access to oil. I doubt that the huge market that is the US is going to dry up, or that magically the Euro’s are going to take up the slack and start importing like mad (unless you have some other market in mind for China and India to sell their goods that will replace the US?). I’m not sure where you are going with this part of your argument, but how will this cause The World™ to rally around China/India (or China and India to rally around each other) to go to war with the US?
I’d think just the opposite will occur…as China and India (especially China) continue to grow, they will become more of a threat to the Euro’s, both in the market place and in competing for their own oil needs…and they will ALSO far surpass the US as a CO2 pollutant. As I said, the Chinese are ALREADY poised to surpass the US on that score, and they aren’t slowing down. I’m not sure where India is, but I recall that they are building coal plants like mad, so I’m sure they aren’t far behind. While the US (slowly, lurchingly) actually is reducing its carbon foot print (relatively), China and India are increasing their’s dramatically…so if this is an issue worth going to war over, then I’d think that one or both of THOSE countries will come under fire as well.
Well…actually I didn’t say that. I’ll answer however. It depends on your definition of ‘not wanted’. Not wanted by who exactly? The GOVERNMENTS of the host countries…or some non-zero percentage of the population of those host countries? US forces were certainly NOT wanted in Europe during the cold war by a very LARGE percentage of the host countries then were stationed in, many times…yet the host countries (many of who were democracies) STILL wanted the US to be there.
Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan (two countries we invaded and are occupying…not exactly the same thing as stationing troops there) however, which countries did you have in mind where the US stations forces and are not welcome…at least by the host governments? And which countries do you feel the US stations forces in where our allies would rather we didn’t…to the point that they would contemplate war with us over the issue? Or even simply severing our alliances and history together over the issue?
Do I see a ‘US vs the world’ conflict as completely impossible? No, but I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario where it could plausibly happen with anything more remote than a probability of something like a dinosaur killer hitting the earth next year.
Feel free to talk out what you think is a plausible scenario if you can think of one that would pit the US and the rest of the world in an actual military confrontation…maybe you can come up with something. I certainly can’t.
I don’t think the earth cares. Also, their emissions are growing much more rapidly than our own (or anyone else’s). Why do you think it would matter at any rate wrt a war?
Well, its one thing to be CALLED or thought of as the source of all evil, especially by a bunch of left wing loonies (I’m not putting you in that category btw)…quite another for the entire world to go to war with the US. If you can’t see the difference I’m not sure I can help you to be honest.
And you expect the thought processes behind a global war to be those of good judgement ? If history shows one thing, it’s that the people in charge are often utter fools.
First, it’s not a fond dream of mine, as I’d likely be killed. Second, what makes you think that we won’t be the ones to start it ? Do you think the rest of the world would lie down and let us conquer them ? If the neocons had managed to gain control of the majority of the Middle East’s oil, that could have set it off, for example.
Easy.
Oil supplies grow tight; America responds by conquering oil producing countries and taking all production for themselves; other countries retaliate, and it grows from there. America as WWII Japan, basically.
America is nuked by a weapon traced to a nuclear armed country ( truthfully or not ); America responds with a nuclear attack, they retaliate. Or we invade them to find whoever nuked us, and they defend themselves with nukes.
A Rapture-loving religious loon is elected, and he packs the military command with similar loons for years, then launches a nuclear attack on Russia, China and any other country that can hit us in order to bring on Armageddon. What the Russians feared Reagan would do.
Global warming brings abvout ecological collapse; millions starve in Europe, leading to the election of zealots of various kinds. Blaming us, and having no hope for survival anyway, one or more launches a nuclear strike at the US to take us with them.
A terrorist group based somewhere in Europe or China manages to kill a large number of Americans with WMD of some kind; they avoid capture by the host government. Rather than waiting, America invades to capture them itself, and the country in question naturally fights back. The situation goes nuclear.
There’s another Great Depression, ecological collapse, or something similar; a Hitleresque demogogue gets elected by blaming evil foreigners/atheists/whatever for it all, and launches a campaign of conquest in “retaliation”. America as WW II Germany.
Really, there’s all sorts of ways America could get dragged into or start a world war; claiming otherwise is another example of American Exceptionalism; “It can’t happen here”.
You forgot the mind controlling space aliens who are on vacation to have a good time and have inflitrated the top leadership of every nation on earth with a leader who has an IQ higher than a turnip (luckily we are safe :)) and who have decided to pit their minions of destruction against the one leader who holds out under their ray gun…GW Bush!
I think the above scenerio fits in rather well on a probablility scale with most of yoru own assertions…in fact, its slightly more plausable than a few of them. And I know you wouldn’t have wanted to miss this one.
I expect leaders of nations to make rational judgements…at least rational in the view that the logical behind it makes sense to them, if not to anyone else. I expect leaders to make decisions based on whats best for themselves and their countries…or at least, again, what they THINK is best in both cases. Making war against THE world greatest hyperpower at the height of their military strength because you are pissed off about global warming doesn’t seem to me a very rational response. The same goes for allies of said country suddenly getting pissed off because the US is making (or testing) new versions of nuclear weapons n an attempt to modernize the stockpiles. Nor do I see US troops stationed abroad at the request of the host countries involved (leaving aside Afghanistan and Iraq of course) as a causus belli…especially with a country that has the most advanced and effective military in the world at the moment.
Its like Red Dawn, Middle Eastern style! THis is fantasy Der…the US isn’t going to invade the ME and take all the oil. Hell, if we were going to start down that path we’d have taken all of IRAQI’S oil…who’d stop us? It would be easy enough. Throw down a brutal enough military iron fist, send in enough troops and fortify the oil infrastructure while letting everything else fend for itself. We could be pumping oil well over the levels Iraq was pumping before even GWI…and they would be going straight into US flagged carriers, escorted by the US Navy and shipped states.
If American was nuked first then NATO would be in it whether they liked it or not (as it is, I’m sure they would be more than happy to help in this situation…the next one might be coming there way, and this is what mutual defense pacts are for after all). Whether or not the US responds with a nuke or with massive conventional means is a matter of the situation…its not an automatic (though in theory it is). Having attacked us with nukes to begin with and further using nukes against us when we try to defend ourselves…well, how does this scenerio get to your point? Why would the world turn on US, the victim? Why wouldn’t they turn on the complete morons who used nukes in the first place? How would NATO NOT side with the US in such a case? Are you saying NATO is going away soon?
The Russians were delusional…and so are you if you think this has any basis in reality. A covert, underground Rapture-loving religious loon is able to hide this fact from the public effectively enough to get elected. Once elected, he’s going to be able to circumvent the launch and authorization proceedures that require several people to verify that what the president is authorizing is in fact US policy AND sane? And you think this is more than a really badly written movie or one of those chewed up, cover missing, yellowing paged, rat chewed paperback you sometimes find acting to help level a table or couch, or to prop up computer monitor or something??
The only plausable part of this is that a lot of Euro’s WOULD blame the US, despite the fact that India and China are major CO2 pollution contributors. Doesn’t matter…they don’t count, etc etc.
That aside, I find it hard to beleive that even a anti-American left wing loony that makes you look calm and rational could or would simply snap and launch nukes at the US (unprovoked except in his/her own twisted mind) to kill millions of people, knowing that more millions of their own citizens would die. This seems plausable to you? This seems like something that could really happen in this universe?
If the countries in question aren’t cooperating then I don’t see what the option would be. If the US was in fact attacked with WMD on any kind of scale, we would have to respond. If the countries these terrorists are in are blocking attempts to get at these guys, then they would have to be considered enemies too. As for it ‘going nuclear’…well that depends on a lot of things happening, most highly unlikely.
EVen given all this however, where does the REST of the outraged world come into play? After all, we aren’t talking about a country here or there attacking the US…but the entire World™ (or some reasonable percentage of the more powerful countries who actually COULD attack the US). In each of your scenario’s that involve someone attacking us, and the US fighting back, I don’t see how this would spark the kind of world anger that would drive the Europeans (especially the Brits), Canadians, Austrailans, Japanese, South Korean’s, etc to join in the fun and attack the US. “Down with AMERICIA! Those evil fucks defended themselves when they were attacked by WMD! The nerve!” “Can you believe it?!? Those evil American’s actually think that just because New York is a radioactive smoking hole in the ground, that this gives them the right to attack another country simply because the terrorists who did it live there!” Lets all attack the victim, ehe?
I really think you should work in the mind controlling space alien story too…it goes along well in this list. And its got about the same level of probability of actually happening as most of these…maybe a bit more than the Hitlersque one in fact.
To sum up your post; America is a land of Superior People, who would never, ever do all the bad and stupid things so many other countries have done. And believing otherwise is complete lunacy. Despite all the bad and stupid things we’ve done in the past.
And America will always remain the most powerful country in the world, for all time. And other people won’t be angry if we conquer them, because we’re just that special.
In other words, American Exceptionalism, smirking variety.
I’ve always wondered if the world isn’t a little too shaken up by that possibility to start another World War. I mean, it was only about two decades between the end of the first one and the beginning of the second one. And as WWI’s Vienna treaty planted the seeds for the German anger that sparked the second war, WWII’s formation of the Israeli state surely planted the seeds for an Arabian anger substantial to start a third one. So, why hasn’t it started? Are the national governments of th eworld just a little too creeped out over the prospect of nuclear winter? Or have governments outside of the Middle East just been trying to wear kid gloves, with the thought in mind that they could upset the powder keg all too easily?
It’s just a bit of a head-scratcher: it just took a single, seemingly isolated event to start WWI, and the pre-WWII Nazi party weren’t much more radical than some current governments, even if their leader was more charismatic and political-minded. A number of events have happened since WWII that could have been more than enough to set the world on fire in the first half of the 20th century: the oil embargo, the Egyptian blockade of Israel, the Lebanese and Syrian wars on Israeli civilians in the late 80s and 2006 respectively, Syria’s angst over the Golan Heights, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the reappropriation of Jerusalem several different ways come to mind.
But the US has been cutting its military presence in Japan for a few years, and surely South Korea can think of worse alternatives than a strong American presence there. I mean, think about the nut in charge of the northern state. The enemy in 1950s Korea and 1970s Vietnam was an abstract concept, but Kim Jong-Il is a very real person who could seemingly turn Korea upside down if it weren’t for the fear of Western retaliation.
Not to mention the drug war. There’s a strong Mexican sentiment that there wouldn’t be drug violence there if it weren’t for the US’s unparallelled demand. And the US government that brought the concept of “getting high is evil” to the world and cracks down so hard on its own drug offenders, is mostly complicit with a Mexican government that serves as a model in both drug-war incompetence and anti-democratic shysterism–that raises my eyebrow, at least, and I have to wonder if other people find it fishy too. The problem is that the Mexican and American governments are too tied in together for one to cross the other, particularly for Mexico to violate the US’s trust.
Now, if Hugo Chavez unified a decent proportion of South America and amassed troops in Mexico, that might be a different story; even then it seems like they would need help from a few Arabic nations as well. The rally at Mar del Plata last year was symbolic (to me, at least) of the potential for anti-American sentiment to unify Latin America, but it would be hard for nations to accumulate a decent force and move it within striking distance of the US without being noticed. Not to mention that winning over governments who rely on US aid would be more difficult for Chavez than winning the hearts and minds of the working class. And the Arabic nations, while mostly finding common ground in their hatred and distrust of the US and Israel, are too fractious to put up the kind of unified front to take on the American superpower plus the nearly-unrivaled effectiveness of the Israeli military machine and the threat of the European Union.
But the governments (or in the case of the Middle East, borderless organizations like Hamas) have to get angry to start a war. It’s not enough for the people to be dissatisfied–there’s nothing they can do about it, generally. And America’s allies have always turned a blind eye to our installment of shady leaders; what makes you think that would change now?
If you really think the US can do this, after it’s stretched itself to the breaking point in Iraq for four years and still doesn’t control the oil production there, I think you’re delusional.
The “truthfully or not” part is sound enough–the Iraq war has shown us that the White House is not afraid to conjure an enemy out of thin air if it can’t find a real one. But why would anyone nuke us? They know what they’ll get in return. Any government launching a nuclear attack on the US is well aware that they would soon cease to exist. And I’d like to think that you have to have a largish group of people tied down to at least a vague geographic mission to set up a nuclear launch site and actually do it; those people know that they’d have a price on their head in a way nobody else has since Hitler himself, and the nation they launch from surely would not stand for it.
We already have the Rapture-loving religious loon, but the president is a civilian and doesn’t have as much power to choose his military leaders as you apparently think he does. The DOD is pretty autonomous in that regard. And while radical Christianism is certainly present on an individual level there, it would not fly as the sole determiner of military policy.
And you can see how that panned out. Of course, late 1980s Russian political thinking is obviously the sensible route here, right?
Is India really capable of fighting a World War? Do they have the resources? (an ignorant’s question, not a challenge)
Me? I think that if there is one, which I find very unlikely, it will start with Israel. They are just too bent in dicking around. Some day, they might step on the wrong toe, someone will try to get really ugly with them, the US will get behind them and someone else (China?) will figure that it is unfair to let a nation (meaning trade partner) that is in the right, get wiped by the US because of Israel.
By themselves, nope. There is no shortage of volunteers for the Indian Army, so manpower has never been an issue, but much of the Indian Armed Forces operates with somewhat dated technology - the Air Force is particularly hampered in this regard. However, there is a fair amount of modernising going on, and India certainly does have mineral resources, but oil, as ever, will be the crunch point. I don’t think India has the resources to conduct a long-drawn-out conventional war.
This is not something I ever want to see, but I suppose if it happens India will be able to put up a fair scrap, aided by medium-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Nightmare scenario, though, with three countries holding nukes in a somewhat volatile part of the world.
Possibly- but sizeable chunks of the Indian Army Reserve Forces are armed with Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles, which is great for keeping restless African natives in line or giving Jerry a jolly good walloping, but not really the ideal weapon to be facing off against the Chinese Red Army with.
In the interests of fairness, though, I should mention that the vast majority of the Indian Army are armed with the Rifle 1A (L1A1 SLR) or the INSAS, a 5.56mm rifle which combines bits and pieces of the L1A1, H&K G3, and AK-47 designs.
If I were a betting man (and I am ), my money would be on the Indians any day of the week in an India vs China conflict. Even if the Chinese had Chuck Norris leading their army.
Of course, in that scenario, we won’t have to worry about Nuclear Winter, since Chuck Norris can just turn the sun up to compensate.
I’m afraid so. Our security analysts have been talking about “rogue states”… then we look around the world, and look in the mirror, and get the sickening realization… we are the rogue state our security analysts warned us about.
So, to sum up your strawman: I didn’t actually read your post XT, nor attempt to understand the points you were making. You see I had these preconceived ideas and didn’t want them to go to waste, so thought I’d just put them out as if your said them, that way I could knock them down more easily.
Thanks for all the fish!
That about summ it up Der?
But lets break it down…its a slow morning:
I know of no country that ever pissed off the entire world to attack it for such minor and stupd reasons. Feel free to give historical examples where the entire world attacked a single country because of environmental issues. Or, IOW, try and put what I wrote in the context of the question I was actually answering. Or not as it suits you.
Well…believing the entire world is going to attack the US, while not strictly speaking lunacy, might be considered, er, eccentric I suppose.
Yep…even despite all the bad things we’ve done in the past its not very likely that they are all going to suddenly turn on us like a pack of rabid kittens. Going to take a bit more than that to get the Euro’s on the warpath for US blood I think.
Really? Interesting you should say that. Myself, I think you are wrong…but YMMV. You need a bit more filler for your strawman though.
Here’s more straw…I knew you could do it!
Thats American howling with laughter at the absurd POS strawman you chose to post. I never said any of those things…and most of them are so over the top you’d need to be a rabid idiot to believe them as absolutes. I’m a lot of things, but a rabid idiot isn’t one of them.
What I SAID was that The World™ isn’t going to attack the US. If you want to stretch that to mean I said that Iraq should be happy about being conquered, well thats your lookout. If you want to stretch that to mean I said that the US would always and forever be the worlds hyperpower, well whatever floats your boat. If you want to stretch that to mean America is perfect, makes no mistakes, etc well feel free sunshine.
Prolog I: Two regional nuclear powers like India/Pakistan or Israel/Iran fight a “little” nuclear war (~100 nukes exchanged). It isn’t the end of the world but now the nuclear genie is out of the bottle: there’s now a test case for how nuclear exchanges actually work out in real life. The world powers take note, and nukes are now regarded as usable weapons rather than deterrents.
Prolog II: Decades of deficit spending finally catch up to the United States when it can no longer get other nations to buy US debt. A fiscal crisis ensues; either the US defaults on it’s debts or has to spend fifty percent or more of it’s revenue on debt service. With deficit spending no longer an option, the US goes into something close to Great Depression II. The US simply can’t afford a half-trillion dollar a year defense budget anymore, and the collapse of the domestic safety net leads to social instability. The US now looks like Imperial Spain circa 1680, a has-been power living on it’s reputation.
Prolog III: With the power vacuum left by the decline of the US, there’s a world scramble to possess nuclear weapons. After about 20 years, there are twenty or thirty nations in the world with the independent capacity to build nukes.
Prolog IV: Nuclear terrorism finally takes place. The source of the bomb is never definitely ascertained. The targeted country sends death squads abroad to deal with those believed responsible. The line between terrorism and counter-terrorism blurs.
Prolog V: A major regional power demands that it’s neighbors surrender their nuclear arsenals and accept protectorate status. The neighbors say F.-U. A tense stand off ensues as people choose sides.
For the love of God I don’t know why people start these threads.::
As sure as eggs is eggs Der Trihs is bound to leap in with his anti-American rantings at the first opportunity…please stop giving him this opportunity, please!!
Now then to answer the OP. Yes there maybe a WW3 and then again there may not, nobody has the foggiest idea
Why do you find a scenario where a psycho Rapture-loving US president gets elected and proceeds to launch nuclear missiles plausible, but not a scenario where a psycho Russian dictator decides to launch missiles, or a psycho Chinese dictator, or a psycho French dictator, or a psycho British dictator, or a psycho Iranian dictator?
Because a scenario that postulates that the Russian dictator just goes crazy and starts nuking everything isn’t worth talking about. Why is the dark night of fascism always descending on the United States, but never anywhere else? Why does only the United States, in your fevered imagination, engage in risky military adventurism? What, no other countries in the world have greedy leaders with a head full of mush? No other countries in the world depend on oil? Why exactly to do imagine that in a case where the United States responds militarily against nuclear terrorists, the rest of the world is going to blame the United States?
The reason I pour so much scorn on you and DanBlather is that you find it easy to imagine America evilly provoking a global war, yet you’d dismiss as paranoid the idea of any other country doing so. American exceptionalism, self-loathing variety, right back at you.
I honestly do not think their ever will be. I mean If was breaks out the UK will side with the USA for sure. And since the “Allies” will win the war. Which other country could take us on? China has a huge ammount of man power but tech wise they are not up to us. And they spend less on defense then we do. Which means each solider gets less money spent on them. The USA has the biggest mechanized military in the world. And out of all the nuclear powers, only a handful of them actually have the capablity to launch a nuke
Look, I can easily imagine a world war between the US and it’s allies on one side, and China or Russia and their allies on the other side. Or between China et al and India et al. Or between a pan-Arab/Islamist alliance and everyone else.
What I can’t imagine is a war between the United States and any other NATO country. Any such war is only slightly more likely than a war between California and Texas. In the event of such a future war, the entities called “The United States” and “France” will probably bear very little resemblance to the current entites with those names.
And a war between China and the US et al is hardly likely to be a guaranteed Allied victory. What matter is war aims. If our military superiority is so great, how are we getting our ass kicked in Iraq? How did we get our ass kicked in Vietnam? The answer is that war aims differ. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam, but that didn’t mean that North Vietnamese tanks were going to be rolling through Washington when we lost.
So in a world war between China and the United States, China doesn’t lose the war if they are unable to invade and occupy the continental United States. They win if they achieve their war aims and prevent us from achieving ours. Suppose our scenario is a North Korea vs. South Korea war that expands with Japan and the US on the side of the south, and China on the side of the North. Soon American and Chinese troops are fighting each other. The likelihood is that the Korean peninsula will be conquered pretty quickly, and all American troops that can’t be evacuated will be captured. Japan is bombed, Chinese cities are bombed, Taiwan is either invaded or the invasion is repulsed, and so forth.
Now, do we count this as a win for the US if at the end of the war America is not invaded, our cites only suffer minor bombing, and we don’t have to pay tribute to China? Or is it a win for China if they occupy Korea and Taiwan, and Japan is flattened and demilitarized? The fact that we have better tanks and better ships and better planes and better troops doesn’t matter, we’re not going to count it as a win for our side just because we avoided being annexed.
), my money would be on the Indians any day of the week in an India vs China conflict. Even if the Chinese had Chuck Norris leading their army.
: