But, but if we do not fight Ho Chi Minh/the Vietcong in Vietnam we will be fignting them in Los Angeles...
B-b-but if we do not fight in Nam we will lose all of Asia...
B-b-but muh hordes of muslim fanatics and WMDs Saddam will unleash on the world cause he is literally Hitler...
better than the usual neocuck reeing.
Why don't you get a time machine and go fight in Nam?
I see you have changed your mind on
this.
Fuck off to vatnikland or CCPland and try to sell them the refried useful idiot slop, see how they tolerate it. That is my general opinion on this whole "lmao anti war nonconformist" bullshit. If its such a great idea, i'm a very generous guy, i can't accept it, i want all the countries i don't like to be taught such genius.
The Chicoms do not have any real interest in global hegemony, mostly their focus is on domestic issues + securing trade routes and markets the GAE can not disrupt.
>they want to secure their many global trade routes and markets so hard no other power can disrupt them
>no real interest in global hegemony though
Way to go, contradict yourself completely in the same sentence.
If anything they are slowly evolving into the type of standard, inward-looking Asian despotism that has been present for hundreds of years.
They spend more money on internal security than on the military and have more than enough neighbors(India, the various countries of Indochina, Japan which is a fast breakout nuclear power) that have bones to pick with them to think about any global empire.
They have a huge demographics problem, their economy is not in a good state, they have lots of domestic problems to add to that.
At least get your bullshit straight. Do they want to "secure trade route and markets" or larp as North Korea by being an inward-looking Asian despotism?
Okay. First off, enough with the insults.
Second of all, the point I was trying to make- and obviously was too subtle about given your failure to grasp it- is that China is so corrupt and incompetent that they can't even make basic infrastructure correctly.
So fucking what? Where did you get the idea that quality of civilian infrastructure is the ultimate proxy for the military threat a polity poses?
Soviet Union was corrupt and incompetent too, yet it pulled off all the shit it did and ended up controlling most of Europe for a time.
Huns and Mongols terrorized a chunk of Europe despite being a bunch of nomads.
Who has such great competence and infrastructure (which again is mostly irrelevant to economic ambitions, of course you don't invest all the effort in infrastructure if you plan on going on a conquest spree) in the region that they will totally stop China's conquests?
So what makes you think that the Chinese military, which we know is also corrupt at the very least, would be any different.
And who has a non-corrupt military of the same size as China's to fight it?
Moving on.
Not sure what your supported to be getting at here with this list of Chinese ships your throwing at me.
Which ignores the fact that they don't necessarily have to defeat the Chinese (or whoever else), just make it so that they lose more by fighting them then its worth to win.
Well then, who can, with what?
Most of those are weapon systems, not the aircraft itself, thus not the point.
Yet they work the same, and those are also new.
In-air fueling as existed since around WW2, though I am not sure if Spitfires had the capacity for it.
Not on such scale.
Being able to fly further is usually the result of being able to fly faster, yes. Congratulations on being able to figure this out.
Congratulations on yet again being caught talking about shit you have zero understanding of. Flying faster in fact always takes more fuel and engine power. This is why the cheapest to operate, longest ranged civilian, transport and bomber aircraft are subsonic turboprops or jets.
You mean the weapon systems and jets that the USA is perfectly capable of building without a vast colonial empire?
What fucking vast colonial empire? Are we on alternet suddenly?
It's called supply routes and international trade, stop listening to the brainrot of orphaned commie simps, wherever you are getting it.
Yes, which is why one should keep up with them for the sake of national security. Again, not sure what this has to do with the USA going isolationist.
Good luck having the money and interest in keeping up while going isolationist.
Your example is pure absurdity. No nation is going to risk getting nuked in retaliation, especially on the behalf of another.
That's the wonder of puppet states, you don't ask them what they want to risk.
Okay, which is why we also have such weapon systems if the USA is attacked. And why should we need overseas bases then? If one can, as you claim, attack 'anytime, anywhere and anyone', why build bases? Heck, why bother with a lot of stuff? What I'm trying to say here is, make up your damn mind. Either we need a vast overseas empire for power projection or we don't.
Of course for conventional warfare in support of allies and defense of trade routes. Unless you are a fan of nuclear reaction for the tiniest slights, in which case hats off to you, hardcore.
Most of said supply chains only exist because for reason I already gave. Very little of what the USA needs to survive, sustain and defend itself cannot be acquired at home or through trade if we bothered to build the infrastructure for it.
Needs vs wants. If you struggle with telling these apart, i guess you may as well head off to WEF approved greens and scheme with them about how little people need very little to be "sustainable" and survive. They do it for the green idealism, you, for isolationist idealism, but it boils down to the same thing.
But as far as i know, most Americans actually are quite famous for liking to have lots of shit way beyond the necessities of survival.
And since you seem obsessed about technology marching on and leaving the USA behind, whose to say that one day those resources won't be synthesized?
All I've seen is a lot of Cold War hysteria, as
@Agent23 has pointed out. Which is ironic.
What is even more ironic is that both you and him are spamming the forum with minor variations of the same arguments commonly spammed by the other side and its useful idiots during the Cold War.
Things change, yet they stay the same...
You people are just like the greens.
Why doesn't Russia have anti-globalist, pro-isolationist and green opposition?
Because it is ruled by the same people who helped nurture these brainbugs in the West.
Why doesn't China have anti-globalist, pro-isolationist and green opposition?
Because it is ruled by people who were trained by the same people who helped nurture these brainbugs in the West.
Sorry, keep your brainbugs to yourself, i have no use for them.