The High Ground

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-24 06:39pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Absolute surrender and capitulation of the PRC without the use of our strategic nuclear arsenal is probably an impossibility.
No it isn't. Teh Large population = rapidly industrializing country = teh
farmland disappearing.

China is no longer a net exporter of food I believe. Nor iis it one of Coal.

Send a few B-52s to sink every ship lined outside Australian coal ports
and you'll begin starving China into economic submission.

Given from the very report you showed us, I doubt bombing that many ships would help us either given we need that industry just as much. We can blockade, but wiping out shipping sounds bloody stupid.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-05-24 09:30pm

Oh very nice. Bomb ships in Allied harbours.
Diplomacy at work

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-24 09:31pm

pellaeons_scion wrote:Oh very nice. Bomb ships in Allied harbours.
Diplomacy at work

Yes, All hail Sir Winston Churchill

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-24 09:32pm

Oh, lay off him! He's jockeying for a job in Bush's State Dept.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-05-24 09:32pm

errr? what? explain this. When did Churchill bomb transports in allied harbors?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-24 09:39pm

Why do people say a missile shield would be defensive? A shield is an offensive weapon. Mr. Bomb Australian Ports to Teach China a Lesson proves me right. Nobody picks up a shield and slips on a byrnie without picking up a sword or other weapon.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-24 09:40pm

pellaeons_scion wrote:errr? what? explain this. When did Churchill bomb transports in allied harbors?

He's probably referring to the British sinking the French ships at Oran in 1940.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-05-24 09:42pm

Ah that one. I beleive thats because they didnt want them turned over to Axis use. They wouldnt give them up, and wouldnt join the Free French. So the RN sunk them as a liability. And the port was Vichy, so it wasnt an ally

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-05-24 09:44pm

I think, if we take the nukes out of the equation, it would be possible, with a full-scale war effort (I'm not talking Iraq...I'm talking WWIII here) to occupy (and certainly level) most of the major metropolitian Chinese coastal areas.

And if we can blockade China, and cut off it's access to outside resources, then the government is going to rapidly go downhill and lose control of the rural population.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-24 09:53pm

There was more to it than that. Churchill was under tremendous pressure by the extreme Right in Britain to throw in the towel. The sinking of the French ships and the night attack on Berlin's suburbs were a Cortez-like "burning of the boats". This was for keeps.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-24 10:26pm

HemlockGrey wrote:And if we can blockade China, and cut off it's access to outside resources, then the government is going to rapidly go downhill and lose control of the rural population.

Precisely. No need to put a single soldier inside China. We just use
our overwhelming air and naval superiority to strangle China's economy,
and then sit back and watch as China splinters back into warlordism,
which is the natural state of things for China, and broker some deals
with the largest Chinese states that emerge from the chaos.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-24 10:28pm

Some people might decry me as being a cold blooded bastard, for all
the implications that my policy of starving China into oblivion entails,
but I truly do believe that China and the US are headed in a collission
course which will hit each other a few decades from now.

Put simply, the world isn't big enough for the both of us, and I
would like to be immune to the Chinese threats of destroying our
cities when that happens.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-05-24 10:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:I love the name "Brilliant Pebbles". It makes me laugh.

But anyway, while I do appreciate some of the arguments made in favour of a missile shield (or more properly, made against the somewhat extremist arguments against it), the notion of the US putting armed satellites over other countries with the ability to fire on a missile as it takes off does sound a helluva lot like a space-based weapon platform rather than a purely defensive system.

No offence Mike, but well ... yeah duh! The Bush administration has very openly moved the US's position from 'controling' space to flat out 'owning' space!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-24 10:43pm

Crown wrote:No offence Mike, but well ... yeah duh! The Bush administration has very openly moved the US's position from 'controling' space to flat out 'owning' space!

Don't forget that the Commies designed Fractional Orbital Bombardment
systems in the late 60s. Think a nuclear warhead orbiting over your
head 24/7/365 ready to drop on the command from Moscow.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-05-24 10:56pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Crown wrote:No offence Mike, but well ... yeah duh! The Bush administration has very openly moved the US's position from 'controling' space to flat out 'owning' space!
Don't forget that the Commies designed Fractional Orbital Bombardment
systems in the late 60s. Think a nuclear warhead orbiting over your
head 24/7/365 ready to drop on the command from Moscow.

And the US responded with the 'Tungsten Rods of Doom!' ... pure KE is a bitch apparently.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-24 11:01pm

The last time Uncle Sam tangled with China was during Korea. It was pretty ugly. During that campaign, the US Army set (and still holds) the record for most miles retreated in a single day. Dugout Doug tried to go nuclear, like a brawler in a saloon who is getting his ass kicked going for his gun, got too uppity and Truman shitcanned him. Bad business all around.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-05-24 11:03pm

MKSheppard wrote:Some people might decry me as being a cold blooded bastard, for all
the implications that my policy of starving China into oblivion entails,
but I truly do believe that China and the US are headed in a collission
course which will hit each other a few decades from now.

Put simply, the world isn't big enough for the both of us, and I
would like to be immune to the Chinese threats of destroying our
cities when that happens.

China isn't overly expansionist, and isn't trying to force its ideology down anyone's throat.

China and India clashing, yes, probably. 'One mountain isn't big enough for two tigers.'

China and the US? No.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-24 11:19pm

Crown wrote:China and the US? No.

Yes. I don't recall where I heard it, but a Chinese official said that
they "wanted a US Standard of living" for every Chinese. Uhmmm,
now that China is moving past Japan for No. 2 Oil consumer in the
world, and is steadily growing.....erm, there aint enough resources
on this here planet to go around for everyone.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-24 11:22pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Crown wrote:China and the US? No.
Yes. I don't recall where I heard it, but a Chinese official said that
they "wanted a US Standard of living" for every Chinese. Uhmmm,
now that China is moving past Japan for No. 2 Oil consumer in the
world, and is steadily growing.....erm, there aint enough resources
on this here planet to go around for everyone.

If you change the word 'resources' in that to 'oil', you'd be right. There are ways around the oil requirements, though whether they will be employed is a different question. Why you think this means the PRC will violently and suicidally attack the US is a very good question, though.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-24 11:29pm

SirNitram wrote:Why you think this means the PRC will violently and suicidally attack the US is a very good question, though.

Because they will make a grab for oil in the Spratly Islands, and they
will get the USA involved because the Phillipines, along with everyone
else in the area claims that set of islands for themselves too, and it'll
spiral out from there.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-24 11:29pm

Because it would be foolish not to plan for that eventuality.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-05-25 03:40am

MKSheppard wrote:
Send a few B-52s to sink every ship lined outside Australian coal ports
and you'll begin starving China into economic submission.

Please wait till they're in their own waters, danke. We don't need stray AGM-84s mussing up the view.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-25 09:44am

China might be heading for another problem if it keeps this up too, namely the lack of proper water supplies which already threaten many other countries.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-05-25 08:31pm

MKSheppard wrote:Some people might decry me as being a cold blooded bastard, for all
the implications that my policy of starving China into oblivion entails,
but I truly do believe that China and the US are headed in a collission
course which will hit each other a few decades from now.

Put simply, the world isn't big enough for the both of us, and I
would like to be immune to the Chinese threats of destroying our
cities when that happens.

I always thought that it was more likely that China would strike north, against Russia, to try to secure all that juicy Siberian mineral wealth. I also wouldn't be suprised if India got dragged into the mess somehow or another.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-05-25 08:44pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
I always thought that it was more likely that China would strike north, against Russia, to try to secure all that juicy Siberian mineral wealth. I also wouldn't be suprised if India got dragged into the mess somehow or another.

That be a quick way to end overpopulation.