US to send B-52 bombers to Australia in move China warns could 'trigger' arms race

[Mac-7]

let's not forget : that's what the rest of the world is saying about the US' drive for expansionism and uni-polarism too!

No its not

Within the leftwing echo chamber perhaps

But that is a fringe opinion

 

[busybee01]

US to send B-52 bombers to Australia in move China warns could 'trigger' arms race

China is warning an "arms race" may result in response to U.S. plans to send up to six B-52 bombers to Australia to strengthen regional security resources.

www.foxnews.com

sadly, the Chinese are right. NATO defensive posturing in the Taiwan Straits and like this, sending nuke-capable bombers to Australia, *is* going to deepen the arms race with China.
Chinese nationalists will be giggling over this. those nationalists are not so easily countered anymore, on present day forum and social media websites.
so i prefer to take the Chinese fleet out by surprise. how about you?

It's okay for China to do it but not us. Apparently you support Chinese communists as well as Russian communists.

 

[frigidweirdo]

US to send B-52 bombers to Australia in move China warns could 'trigger' arms race

China is warning an "arms race" may result in response to U.S. plans to send up to six B-52 bombers to Australia to strengthen regional security resources.

www.foxnews.com

sadly, the Chinese are right. NATO defensive posturing in the Taiwan Straits and like this, sending nuke-capable bombers to Australia, *is* going to deepen the arms race with China.
Chinese nationalists will be giggling over this. those nationalists are not so easily countered anymore, on present day forum and social media websites.
so i prefer to take the Chinese fleet out by surprise. how about you?

The problem is the Chinese are about 20 years behind the times.
They've been building up and building up. An arms race was INEVITABLE 20 years ago, when Xi got elected it was double dooby inevitable.

Sending anything to Australia doesn't change a single thing. It's just the Chinese trying to be all sanctimonious about their build up of arms and their "peace making" which involved invading anyone who disagrees with them, because if you disagree with China, you're "provoking war".

 

[konradv]

That was not the right

Libertarians are the main non interventionists

Though some conservatives are as knee jerk anti biden as libs are anti trump

Remember Trump led the way for support for Taiwan when he was president

Who’s talking about libertarians? They’re a non-factor.

 

[peacefan]

The problem is the Chinese are about 20 years behind the times.
They've been building up and building up. An arms race was INEVITABLE 20 years ago, when Xi got elected it was double dooby inevitable.

Sending anything to Australia doesn't change a single thing. It's just the Chinese trying to be all sanctimonious about their build up of arms and their "peace making" which involved invading anyone who disagrees with them, because if you disagree with China, you're "provoking war".

which countries has China invaded in the last 20 years then?

No its not

Within the leftwing echo chamber perhaps

But that is a fringe opinion

the US has invaded half a dozen or more countries in the past 20 years.
only to leave after a thorough a$$-wooping.

 

[peacefan]

It's okay for China to do it but not us. Apparently you support Chinese communists as well as Russian communists.

i support multi-polarity.

Polarity (international relations) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Multipolarity[edit]​

Multipolarity is a distribution of power in which more than two states have similar amounts of power. The Concert of Europe, a period from after the Napoleonic Wars to the Crimean War, was an example of peaceful multipolarity (the great powers of Europe assembled regularly to discuss international and domestic issues),[32] as was the Interwar period.[33] Examples of wartime multipolarity include World War I,[34] World War II,[35] the Thirty Years War,[36] the Warring States period,[37] the Three Kingdoms period and the tripartite division between Song dynasty/Liao dynasty/Jin dynasty/Yuan dynasty.

Impact on conflict and cooperation[edit]​

Empires of the world in 1905, with minor mistakes.
Classical realist theorists, such as Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr, hold that multipolar systems are more stable than bipolar systems, as great powers can gain power through alliances and petty wars that do not directly challenge other powers; in bipolar systems, classical realists argue, this is not possible.

Neorealists hold that multipolar systems are particularly unstable and conflict-prone, as there is greater complexity in managing alliance systems, and a greater chance of misjudging the intentions of other states.[38] Thomas Christensen and Jack Snyder argue that multipolarity tends towards instability and conflict escalation due to "chain-ganging" (allies get drawn into unwise wars provoked by alliance partners) and "buck-passing" (states which do not experience an immediate proximate threat do not balance against the threatening power in the hope that others carry the cost of balancing against the threat).[39]

Multipolarity does not guarantee multilateralism and can pose a challenge against multilateralism.[40][41] According to Kemal Derviş, a decline in unipolarity creates a crisis in multilateralism; it is possible to revive multilateralism in a multipolar system, but this is more threatened and the structure to do so is not fully developed.[40] In multipolarity, larger powers can negotiate "mega-regional" agreements more easily than smaller ones. When there are multiple competing great powers, this can lead to the smaller states being left out of such agreements.[41] Though multipolar orders form regional hegemonies around 'poles' or great powers, this can weaken economic interdependencies within regions, at least in regions without a great power.[42] Additionally, as multipolar systems can tend to regional hegemonies or bounded orders, agreements are formed within these bounded orders rather than globally. Though, Mearsheimer predicts the persistence of a thin international order within multipolarity, which constitutes some multilateral agreements.[43]

 

[Mac-7]

which countries has China invaded in the last 20 years then?

the US has invaded half a dozen or more countries in the past 20 years.
only to leave after a thorough a$$-wooping.

Not once for territorial gain

We are the worlds peacekeepers and champion of democracy

China is the opposite

Just ask the people of Tibet or Hong Kong

 

[frigidweirdo]

which countries has China invaded in the last 20 years then?



the US has invaded half a dozen or more countries in the past 20 years.
only to leave after a thorough a$$-wooping.

Well, apart from India, Bhutan

2020–2021 China–India skirmishes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bhutan–China relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Several new Chinese villages have crept into internationally recognized Bhutanese territory"

Then if we talk about the sea areas, China has done all sorts of things.

China–Philippines relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Philippines

"In April 2019, international satellites and local reports revealed that Chinese ships have swarmed Philippine-controlled areas in the South China Sea through a cabbage strategy."

"On 9 June, a Chinese ship, Yuemaobinyu 42212, rammed and sank a Philippine fishing vessel, F/B Gem-Ver, near Reed Bank, west of Palawan."

China–Vietnam relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vietnam

"In May 2013 Vietnam accused China of hitting one of its fishing boats,[55] and in May 2014, Vietnam accused China of ramming and sinking a fishing boat."

"The better-equipped boats sailed into the disputed waters as a state-subsidized operation to extend Chinese sovereignty,"

"In June China declared there would be no military conflict with Vietnam.[58] China then had 71 ships in the disputed area, and Vietnam had 61"

What China does, and has done many, many times, is to claim huge swathes of land. Put them on their own maps, and then declare their war mongering as an "internal affair", especially with Taiwan.

That doesn't mean the Chinese aren't going into other people's countries and literally doing whatever they want, and killing people. China pretends to want peace. It's use the argument that "We want peace, if we go to war, it's because you provoked us by doing something we don't like" or "it's an internal affair".

Yes, the US has done a lot of warmongering. That doesn't mean that what China is doing is good, does it? China has learned from the US, it's stolen from the US, it sees the US's dominance as the blue print of how to be a fucking horrible country to anyone who opposes it. Right now it's mostly concentrating on Taiwan, simply because Xi wants to go down in history as the leader who took over Taiwan. Nothing more. It's there because his ego is a billion times bigger than his dick.

After Taiwan, then what? Whether it's Xi or someone else, China is going to end up doing what the US has done.

 

[peacefan]

Not once for territorial gain

We are the worlds peacekeepers and champion of democracy

China is the opposite

Just ask the people of Tibet or Hong Kong

no, you just prefer to leave the territories that you put in a war, in a mess afterwards! (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, *UKRAINE*)

and you are not peace keepers, you are war profiteers!

that's not to say Beijing did the right thing when it comes to the topics of Tibet and Hong Kong.
but at least those who do not oppose the rules imposed by Beijing get a shot a meaningful life.

 

[peacefan]

...
What China does, and has done many, many times, is to claim huge swathes of land. Put them on their own maps, and then declare their war mongering as an "internal affair", especially with Taiwan.

That doesn't mean the Chinese aren't going into other people's countries and literally doing whatever they want, and killing people. China pretends to want peace. It's use the argument that "We want peace, if we go to war, it's because you provoked us by doing something we don't like" or "it's an internal affair".

Yes, the US has done a lot of warmongering. That doesn't mean that what China is doing is good, does it? China has learned from the US, it's stolen from the US, it sees the US's dominance as the blue print of how to be a fucking horrible country to anyone who opposes it. Right now it's mostly concentrating on Taiwan, simply because Xi wants to go down in history as the leader who took over Taiwan. Nothing more. It's there because his ego is a billion times bigger than his dick.

After Taiwan, then what? Whether it's Xi or someone else, China is going to end up doing what the US has done.

And this is why i'm so disatisfied with present-day behavior from just about all superpowers. You seem to think you can bully the smaller nations of Earth into submission!

 

[ActionJackson]

I'm no peace-nick either. I just found it ironic that your title didn't actually match your apparent sentiments.

Personally, I would like to have a powerful military and stay in front of the latest technology while doing everything possible to avoid war. Nobody actually wins a war (except for the fanciers).

I think of it in terms of gun ownership. Have a loaded gun, but don't be the instigator of a gun fight.

I see my spellcheck screwed me again. "Financiers" ... not "fanciers."

 

[Mac-7]

no, you just prefer to leave the territories that you put in a war, in a mess afterwards! (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, *UKRAINE*)

and you are not peace keepers, you are war profiteers!

that's not to say Beijing did the right thing when it comes to the topics of Tibet and Hong Kong.
but at least those who do not oppose the rules imposed by Beijing get a shot a meaningful life.

Compared to the US china has always been very poor and weak

Therefor incapable of mistreating other nations

The US has made honest mistakes but also done much good

 

[frigidweirdo]

And this is why i'm so disatisfied with present-day behavior from just about all superpowers. You seem to think you can bully the smaller nations of Earth into submission!

Because they can, and they do. Humans are generally a-holes when they get power like this.