What nation you admire the most?

You have no idea how geopolitics work, or what the US-Korea alliance and US-Japan alliance mean to us. Your statements are completely unfounded and have no shred of factual basis. They are, like Imperial's, inventions of your own; fantasies.

Again, completely laughable and baseless statements.

Mozambique could challenge us. Does that mean Mozambique is a superpower?

China completely lacks the capacity to deploy its military globally and would have major trouble deploying it even to another East Asian nation.

Yes, it is.

If China actually had secret advanced technology, then the fact that they can actually keep it a secret means that it is not nearly practical enough to actually be useful in a military conflict. No doubt they have prototypes that we don't know about, but in no way does that make them equally competent, as the overwhelming majority of their military is toting around Soviet-era surplus weaponry.

Irony.

Nationalism has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me. It has to do with the fact that your overwhelming emotional attachment to a nation makes you ignore factual statements in favor of convoluted fantasies and attempts to rationalize wrongdoings committed by that nation.

ASMs are not new and there is a reason that aircraft carriers travel in large flotilla groups that have several Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers.[/quote:1tjhh6nb]

Thank yo for summing up our thoughts in one big post.

I rarely, if ever ignore anything. If I've challenged what you said, then it was based on the idea of questioning the validity of information. I would be a fool not to question every fact that anybody says. You rarely, if ever, take for granted any information in a debate; you verify, or ask for verification, of everything.

Lol. Like what? If you read my posts as a whole, I'm pretty sure that catching what I really believe in and what I do not is pretty simple.

1. That is human nature
2. Why not? You take everything that you believe in to be a fact and present it as such, even when it is clearly an opinion to anybody who looks at it closely. You have your perspectives, I have mine. That you are stubborn and incapible of comprehending or accepting that the world is seen through different eyes is your flaw, not mine.
3. I remember distinctly accepting that China has done and does wrong things. Hell, I even agreed with you on things.

I'll have to check for ASMs in particular, but when I said 'new', I actually meant in the context of 'its new for China' and not in the context that China never had any, but that it is a new missle design.

I am perfectly aware of the general workings of U.S. fleets, thank you very much.

Goddamnit, you should teach me to write epic history essays so I will get top grades.

We should open up a class on the forums called Kali's teachings on epic history essays to give people top grades/ :lol:

I'm waiting for Kali's response...

Mosh

It has nothing to do with your irrational love of your country. You aren't a non-biased party because you came into the argument with an opinion.

Your response is simply cobbling together random information that doesn't have any factual support and depositing a non sequitur conclusion at the end of it. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you.

This statement just makes my head hurt. A 'good economy' doesn't make you a superpower.

China not being a 'military superpower' is the opposite of a baseless statement, it's fact.

China isn't a superpower. It's as simple as that.

That doesn't prove anything and isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. As well, you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence to back up that claim.

The most important part of being a superpower is that you have the ability to project your influence everywhere on the globe. China utterly and completely lacks that capacity.

That doesn't make any sense.

Imperial

There is a difference between questioning the validity of a position and denying it outright without any evidence.

You stated factually invalid things, like Korean opinion of America being low, about Korean opinion of China being high, about Korean policy regarding China being friendly. You then used these factually invalid ideas to support a ludicrous conclusion that has absolutely zero support, that Korea will break with the US and ally with the Chinese. It's fantasy, plain and simple, because it cannot arise from anywhere else but the imagination of a hopeful child.

Yes, but it's not rational and thus is worthless as an argument and isn't a valid position to take.

I understand other perspectives than my own. I understand that people are unwilling to accept facts so that they can maintain their cognitive dissonance and uphold their irrational fantasies. I do not consider doing so a valid choice.

You presented it as being a trump card in the face of US naval and air dominance, when in reality that is not the case. That you say this:

means that you are actively aware of your own cognitive dissonance.

Duly noted.

I'll debate with you on the subject if you tell me what your opinion is. Under what circumstances DO YOU THINK the US would intervene.

A rapidly industrializing economy which is predicted to pull ahead of the US in 9 years definitely makes it look to soon be a superpower if it isn't already. The definition of superpower is, "a very powerful and influential nation" (Merriam Webster) . This definition makes China a superpower.

I believe I already said this earlier in the thread...

I was simply stating my definition of "challenge" and therefore explaining what I meant.

Agreed, however, as their economy gets better, they will gain that capacity. Remember that China is spending 6 times LESS than the US on their military budget.

Sure it does. I'm saying that IF China had a great new military weapon, do you think they would go around testing it thoroughly and maybe accidentally alert the US? They must know by now how good US military satellite systems are.
Furthermore, any kind of new tank they had that maybe they are just starting to produce, they would not go trumpeting its technical specification or even the fact that it existed (if one does) around the streets. We would simply not know until it became available for use in the Chinese military.

Be careful bringing age into these discussions Kali, even if you didn't mean too.

Then obviously it is matter of your misinterpretation of my intent. That is not my problem. I wrote it out perfectly clear.

No, its a matter of opinion and perception. Some experts, like the one you provided, believe that Korea would ally with the U.S. under the stated circumstances. Other, just as acclaimed and influencial experts, disagree with that assessment. That you defer to the one that supports your argument makes just as much sense as me defering to opinions that support mine.
And again, you continue to take my post statements and over-blow them into something that they are not.

Ever stop to consider the idea that you are wrong? On anything? I would be trapped between laughing at you and pitying you if you admitted to being stuck in the position that you are so convinced of your argument that you fall to the same fallacy that you claim to hate: ignoring facts to support fantasies.

Re-read my post. I presented it as an unknown variable that the U.S. aknowledges China's military advancements and that the U.S. is not some god of war. Again, you take my posts how you feel like, rather than what they are.

I agree with you Imperial, Kali is not the completely unbiased fact angel he wants us all to believe he is.

He dismantled both your arguments thoroughly....twice.

He dismantled nothing of mine.
He succeeded in:
1. Insulting me
2. Attacking my opinion
3. Posting his opinion
4. Posting one side of the argument
That he refuses to aknowledge my side is not my problem.
He is blinded by his rabid hate for China which produces a bias that HE refuses to aknowledge.

And YOU. YOU have yet to contribute anything meaningful to this discussion. All you've done so far is be a yes man and restate facts that have already been extablished. Others at least agree/disagree, then add to the discussion.

I think we all need to step back for a moment and consider from all sides, what OUR definition of a superpower is. And then we can debate it. My definition of superpower is that the country is influential (which doesn't have to have anything to do with military), an economic powerhouse, and able to back up its words with force. China meets all but one, and the last one I expect it to be able to do in the near future. As it puts more money into military.

What is your definition, Imperial?

What is your definition Kali?

Slydessertfox, if you have anything to add to the discussion post it. If your simply going to say that you agree, don't waste valuable space.

Well I agree with the Lyman Miller concept of superpower which states the basic components of superpower stature may be measured along four axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural.

For those of you lashing out against Kali is "not the completely unbiased fact angel he wants us all to believe he is" I can only say your mentally incompetant. He never claimed to be unbiased, he mearly stated that your claims of being unbiased were incorrect.

Sly is right in one aspect. He has managed to completely rape both of your arguements [*]twice[*] and forced both of you to revert to fighting over semantics.

A superpower is "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."

China will not be able to obtain the criteria to match the United States military for an estimated 25-30 years. China is using Cold War era technology while the US is what the world compares itself too. If a war were to ever erupt against the US and China you can be sure that the United States allies would join. Namely the EU and India. Where the EU together is considered a superpower and India is projected to become one around the same time as china.

Here is the military of China vs US.

He was the one who started the argument over semantics, not us. He attacked me based on his own bias views and misconceptions of my posts. I bought and gave ground on facts up until the point that he started attacking my character and abandoning the fact-based debate almost entierly. I should add that he does this quite often.

On China's military:
You are only repeating what has already been stated.

And for the matter of 'superpower':
A military is only as useful as it is used. As it stands China is growing economically, politically, and [in influence] culturally. How it compares to the U.S. is only part of the equation. How much pull it has on other nations is the primary factor in determining whether it is a superpower or not. Whether you or Kali like it, China is growing in influence and will obtain the status.

The fact that you and others on this forum live your lives in total awe of Kali is not a valid grounds to making foolish claims to support his argument and taking up valuble posting space when you are just repeating what has already been said. I get the feeling that you do not even read and/or weigh my posts.

I believe I was the one who started the China's military is shit arguement. So im not supporting his argument, he's supporting mine. Your opinion on the value of my opinion is irrelevant. Just as your belief that i'm making foolish claims is unfounded.

The problem with your argument that China will soon have the ability to influence nations on a global scale falls short when you consider they cant even do it with the nations close to them. If the Chinese tried to project their influence on Japan or Korea they would end up in a war they wouldnt survive. The large majority of the world hates China and how they use their economical power to undermine other nations. They would either be split several different ways or be forced to adopt a Pro American government.

Either way this argument is pointless. Unless China's government suddenly became fanatical to the point of political suicide I dont see them trying to dominate Korea or Japan when it is undeniable that it would cause a massive US retaliation. China and the US are major trading partners and I cant see them going to war anytime soon. I know China is gaining influence and is on the road to becoming a super power, im just saying that its not going to happen overnight and that you shouldnt treat them as such.

I disagree with the notion that China means to undermine other nations. More that it is a side effect of their own pursuit of prosperity.
It depends on what you mean by 'project influence'. They would be outright stupid to do it politcally without a firm economic and cultural basis. In any case, I hardly think that they would do it militarily, U.S. or no.
Never. Never think that the Chinese will accept overwhelming outside influence.

For the rest: Fair enough. Points conceded.

BTW why the FUCK does united states need 9400 nukes?? wtf

Mosh

We are military allies of South Korea. We would intervene in any circumstance that puts them in danger, at least.

China's lying about growth rates, that much we know, and even with its doctored economic data it's still on the brink of disaster. Material land growth can only get you so far, and China has very nearly (perhaps already) reached that limit.

In one of the earliest topics on the forums I recall pedro telling a story about one of his classmates being laughed out of his political science course for suggesting that China is a superpower. LK provides the field contextual definition.

Things don't 'just happen.' China cannot become a superpower not just because it lacks the domestic capacity and drive to do so, but because it doesn't exist in a geopolitical vacuum.

And you want us to believe that they're more advanced than us? China lacks the global infrastructure necessary to support a global hegemony, even if it had the military (which it doesn't and won't).

That logic is just so utterly infantile.

The kind of mass production necessary to equip the Chinese military with a new standard armament is far, far too massive to hide. Least of all from the US.

That's not even what the discussion is about. It's about the reality of the situation in Korea and the absence of support for China there.

Restricting the freedom of expression on the grounds that only some opinions are valid is ridiculously tyrannical. Unlike China, these forums uphold the right to free speech.

Imperial

You stated factually incorrect things and used them to support a conclusion that has no basis in the real world. When presented with facts contrary to your baseless position, you proceeded to deny their validity with no reason.

As I said in the original post, it wasn't just an uncommon position in the literature to believe that Korea would side with China, but it's utterly and completely absent. Even in policy debate for 2010, when the topic involved a lot of Sino-Korean scenarios and active opposition to the US, I never once saw anyone claim (expert or otherwise) that Korea despises the US and loves China. It's just not evident in the status quo, and no amount of intellectual disagreement can change that.

Show me.

Look at your posts prior to my entry into this topic. You said ludicrous things because there was no one there who would argue those points.

I understand that my opinion isn't the only one out there. I clearly don't consider any other opinions to be right, because then I would consider my own opinion to be wrong (cognitive dissonance). You, on the other hand, cling to your irrational nationalism even when you recognize the validity or outright correctness of the opposition.

You haven't presented any facts and I haven't presented any scenarios outside of the status quo.

Where?

As is the purpose of debate.

As is the purpose of debate.

As is the purpose of debate.

If I didn't acknowledge your side then I would be unable to attack it. I understand why you believe the things you do, and it's simply irrational.

There is no possible way to remove bias. But that doesn't mean all positions are equally valid. My position is supported by facts and empiricism. Yours is supported by conjecture and opinion (non-expert opinion at that).

You are so ridiculously hypocritical.

Mosh's inappropriate use of the term superpower was relevant.

You haven't stated even a single factual claim. And I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your ideas, primarily because they're completely irrational.

Again, so hypocritical. As well, you don't have the right to tell people what they can post or where.

And who says they would be in danger if they became allies of China? They most likely won't, but that doesn't matter.

It is a rapidly industrializing nation, and we continue to outsource OUR industry to them and other Asian nations.

And I simply provided the dictionary definition.

I don't believe I once said it would 'just happen.' You seem to be hearing what you want to hear (or read).

Once again, I never said it was...I said they are more advanced than we believe, not more advanced than OUR systems. I believe China is probably using technology on a level on par to what we had 10-15 years ago.

How so?

This is not what I said. I'm simply trying to restrict wasteful posts that say simply, "Thank you Kali" or "I agree", without adding anything more to the conversation. Its not needed.

JUST STARTING TO PRODUCE!!!!! READ MY POSTS!!!

You were the one that brought up the superpower thing in the first place, if I remember. I just disagree with your assessment. However, I must guess now that your definition of a superpower is the same as LK's, or am I wrong?
EDIT: My bad, it seems it was LK and I that brought up superpower. And you that brought up nationalism.