The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / By Rajan Menon
 All Comments / By Rajan Menon
    Most people intuitively get it. An American preventive strike to wipe out North Korea’s nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, or a commando raid launched with the same goal in mind, is likely to initiate a chain of events culminating in catastrophe. That would be true above all for the roughly 76 million Koreans living on...
  • @Backwoods Bob
    That is an interesting proposition.

    It is a much better explanation than the "oopsie, shift change" mistake, as if every shift change entailed a ballistic missile warning exercise.

    It is ridiculous to believe there is a one-click drop-down menu for such a thing without any additional verification or steps involved. You can't even delete a picture off a consumer cell phone without verification.

    One might even go further to observe that there is nothing better for promoting fear of an unlikely event than an alarm like this.

    Doing civil defense drills against the Antarctic Army invasion gets people thinking maybe we should do a pre-emptive strike on the Antarctic Army.

    Though I tend to think these really were mistakes, but you are quite correct in that they could have been deliberate, both as part of some kind of PSYOP against North Korea and to psychologically prepare the population for a war. Actually, now that I wrote that, I more or less convinced myself that this explanation might be more likely than my explanation. Or at least equally likely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor
    Great article. I would add the two recent false alarms - obviously both the Hawaii and Japanese authorities are preparing for war, and as part of the preparations, are testing or upgrading their systems to warn the population. While doing that, human mistakes are occasionally made. These false alarms are signs that these authorities (Japan and Hawaii) take the risk of war seriously.

    That is an interesting proposition.

    It is a much better explanation than the “oopsie, shift change” mistake, as if every shift change entailed a ballistic missile warning exercise.

    It is ridiculous to believe there is a one-click drop-down menu for such a thing without any additional verification or steps involved. You can’t even delete a picture off a consumer cell phone without verification.

    One might even go further to observe that there is nothing better for promoting fear of an unlikely event than an alarm like this.

    Doing civil defense drills against the Antarctic Army invasion gets people thinking maybe we should do a pre-emptive strike on the Antarctic Army.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Though I tend to think these really were mistakes, but you are quite correct in that they could have been deliberate, both as part of some kind of PSYOP against North Korea and to psychologically prepare the population for a war. Actually, now that I wrote that, I more or less convinced myself that this explanation might be more likely than my explanation. Or at least equally likely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sounds to me like South Korea can look after itself. It should do just that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Simon
    So basically Menon is declaring that Kim has us stymied; that because Seoul and Tokyo are already hostages today, we have no choice but to allow ourselves to join them and to become hostages as well, standing by passively while North Korea continues to develop its ICBMs... until it can conceivably strike Los Angeles, then Chicago, and finally New York. We'll just have to swallow hard and live with it; we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that Kim is rational. (Isn't that pretty much what Steve Bannon said before he was forced out of the White House?)

    I'm no fan of Lindsey Graham (because he's an immigration squish), but it's my impression that he sees a possible preemptive war, and the possible destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives overseas, as preferable to allowing tens of millions of Americans to become vulnerable to that same fate. Ugly math, maybe so ugly it's downright unimaginable; but I suspect he's correct.

    preemptive war

    What you’re talking about is called preventive war. You can only talk of a preemptive war when there’s a clear and present danger of an imminent North Korean attack. Absent such danger, the war to prevent a hypothetical future scenario of Kim Jon Un losing his mind is not a preemptive, but a preventive war.

    US policy towards North Korea bears a huge responsibility for North Korea even wanting to develop nukes. It could only stop this development by sacrificing tens or hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of civilians of its “allies”. All the while it could easily avoid any problems by simply withdrawing its troops from South Korea, or – even better – by simply acceding to the modest North Korean demands. (They’d freeze development of their nukes if the US promised to freeze exercises in South Korea. They’d permanently put development on hold if the US and South Korea made a peace treaty with them and if they eased sanctions against them.)

    It’s the US who irrationally doesn’t want a peaceful solution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Simon
    So basically Menon is declaring that Kim has us stymied; that because Seoul and Tokyo are already hostages today, we have no choice but to allow ourselves to join them and to become hostages as well, standing by passively while North Korea continues to develop its ICBMs... until it can conceivably strike Los Angeles, then Chicago, and finally New York. We'll just have to swallow hard and live with it; we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed that Kim is rational. (Isn't that pretty much what Steve Bannon said before he was forced out of the White House?)

    I'm no fan of Lindsey Graham (because he's an immigration squish), but it's my impression that he sees a possible preemptive war, and the possible destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives overseas, as preferable to allowing tens of millions of Americans to become vulnerable to that same fate. Ugly math, maybe so ugly it's downright unimaginable; but I suspect he's correct.

    Most realistic scenario, IMHO:

    An attempt to decapitate NK leadership with strike on all nuclear facilities->NK conventional retaliation against Seul->limited incursion by SK/US into NK with strikes on NK air power capabilities and ballistic missile launchers->China covert/overt intervention to remove fatso and his cabal from power->end result: NK de facto China’s protectorate; no nukes in NK.
    Everybody happy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “McMaster and Defense Secretary James Mattis had stayed Trump’s hand so far,”

    This is exactly backwards. It is the generals, the neocons and the Deep State that is pushing for war. The tragedy of the Trump administration is that the Deep State/neocons have seized control of the US’ foreign and defense policies and have side-lined Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • So basically Menon is declaring that Kim has us stymied; that because Seoul and Tokyo are already hostages today, we have no choice but to allow ourselves to join them and to become hostages as well, standing by passively while North Korea continues to develop its ICBMs… until it can conceivably strike Los Angeles, then Chicago, and finally New York. We’ll just have to swallow hard and live with it; we’ll just have to keep our fingers crossed that Kim is rational. (Isn’t that pretty much what Steve Bannon said before he was forced out of the White House?)

    I’m no fan of Lindsey Graham (because he’s an immigration squish), but it’s my impression that he sees a possible preemptive war, and the possible destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives overseas, as preferable to allowing tens of millions of Americans to become vulnerable to that same fate. Ugly math, maybe so ugly it’s downright unimaginable; but I suspect he’s correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Most realistic scenario, IMHO:

    An attempt to decapitate NK leadership with strike on all nuclear facilities->NK conventional retaliation against Seul->limited incursion by SK/US into NK with strikes on NK air power capabilities and ballistic missile launchers->China covert/overt intervention to remove fatso and his cabal from power->end result: NK de facto China's protectorate; no nukes in NK.
    Everybody happy.
    , @reiner Tor

    preemptive war
     
    What you're talking about is called preventive war. You can only talk of a preemptive war when there's a clear and present danger of an imminent North Korean attack. Absent such danger, the war to prevent a hypothetical future scenario of Kim Jon Un losing his mind is not a preemptive, but a preventive war.

    US policy towards North Korea bears a huge responsibility for North Korea even wanting to develop nukes. It could only stop this development by sacrificing tens or hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of civilians of its "allies". All the while it could easily avoid any problems by simply withdrawing its troops from South Korea, or - even better - by simply acceding to the modest North Korean demands. (They'd freeze development of their nukes if the US promised to freeze exercises in South Korea. They'd permanently put development on hold if the US and South Korea made a peace treaty with them and if they eased sanctions against them.)

    It's the US who irrationally doesn't want a peaceful solution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Oh yeah. Well tell me just how are you going to stop those North Korean hordes from pouring over the border into the United States?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Great article. I would add the two recent false alarms – obviously both the Hawaii and Japanese authorities are preparing for war, and as part of the preparations, are testing or upgrading their systems to warn the population. While doing that, human mistakes are occasionally made. These false alarms are signs that these authorities (Japan and Hawaii) take the risk of war seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Backwoods Bob
    That is an interesting proposition.

    It is a much better explanation than the "oopsie, shift change" mistake, as if every shift change entailed a ballistic missile warning exercise.

    It is ridiculous to believe there is a one-click drop-down menu for such a thing without any additional verification or steps involved. You can't even delete a picture off a consumer cell phone without verification.

    One might even go further to observe that there is nothing better for promoting fear of an unlikely event than an alarm like this.

    Doing civil defense drills against the Antarctic Army invasion gets people thinking maybe we should do a pre-emptive strike on the Antarctic Army.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Among the stranger features of the 2016 election campaign was the success of Donald Trump, a creature of globalization, as an America First savior of the white working class. A candidate who amassed billions of dollars by playing globalization for all it was worth -- he manufactured clothes and accessories bearing his name in low-wage...
  • The relevant question isn’t whether the global economy can be redesigned to protect American workers — it can’t — but what their government will do to help them to gain the skills needed to compete effectively in a rapidly changing marketplace. …

    No matter what Donald Trump does about trade pacts and tariffs, companies will continue to shift production overseas to stay ahead of their competitors, which means that well-paying manufacturing jobs in America will continue to disappear. They will also export some of what they make abroad back to the United States, increasing job insecurity and driving down wages. …

    If American workers are to do better in the global marketplace, this country’s public schools must ensure that their students graduate with the math, science, and other skills needed to get decent jobs. …

    create new jobs with skill premiums. Those with high-end jobs (banking, the law, scientific research, and medicine, among others) will, of course, continue to earn significant incomes

    Wow, that’s a lot of neoliberal, elite-class-justifying cant.

    So, students should put a lot of effort, investing years in getting science and math degrees, doing the hard work. Except: we graduate PLENTY of STEM grads in the USA. What percentage actually find work in the fields they trained for? 26%

    http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/gov-where-stem-graduates-are-finding-jobs.html

    Of course, why go to the effort to earn a STEM degree if H-1b simply allows employers to bring in a Reserve army of the underpaid to undercut wages for the STEM grads. For economic return, people smart enough to DO STEM are smart enough to avoid it.

    Note that of the “high-end jobs”, Banking, the law, and medicine are all fields highly protected from competition by government regulation, and science research is mostly funded based on who can toady up to Federal grant agencies. So it seems protectionism DOES work when it comes to the employment of the elite. They just don’t feel any obligation to extend that protection to the little people.

    This fellow is the sort of no-calluses agricultural expert sent out from Moscow to tell the peasants how to farm. The smarter peasants killed people like him.

    Rajan Menon is a political scientist. He holds the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Chair in Political Science at the City University of New York.
    Tenure for me, but never for thee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “But when it comes to the working class he claims to care deeply about, Donald Trump’s deeds don’t go beyond symbolism”

    One need not deliver goods of any kind when your opposition promises nothing less than genocide and celebrates it at every opportunity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • TomDispatch shit is now indistinguishable from WaPo and NYTimes shit.

    All the clinical manifestations of TDS are present, while neither killing the TPP or ongoing renegotiations of NAFTA are mentioned. Congratulations Tom, you’ve gone mainstream.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 2,869 word article about Trump’s base.

    Ctrl + F for “immigra”

    Term appears precisely ONCE near the end of the piece:

    blaming undocumented immigrants

    The author uses the weasel term undocumented (which documents do they lack?) rather than the legal term illegal alien which appears in the US Code.

    The term “racial resentment” does appear–once.

    Photograph of “Rajan Menon”:
    This goon doesn’t understand a thing about Trump’s base.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Terror attacks like the recent one in London send a shudder through Americans. Since 9/11, they have been the definition of what TomDispatch regular Rajan Menon calls “national (in)security.” They've also been the lifeblood of a media machine that loves to focus 24/7 on immediate and obvious horrors (especially against folks like “us”). In the...
  • @Eustace Tilley (not)
    It is the rate of change which is unprecedented. Animals and plants will not be able to keep up. The polar bears will be the first to go, perhaps followed by the resplendent quetzal.

    Man is certainly on the list; do you think he is adapting well? He could start by taking small steps, like forgoing golf vacations in Hawaii.

    The excess carbon from Co2 buildup in the atmosphere has to go somewhere; some of it is stored in the atmosphere itself, but since the mass of the oceans is far greater than the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean can hold more carbon , so a lot of the carbon is going into the oceans as carbonic acid:

    "When carbon dioxide dissolves in this ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This leads to higher acidity, mainly near the surface, which has been proven to inhibit shell growth in marine animals and is suspected as a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish."

    ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/.../critical-issues-ocean-acidification

    So, if Homo sapiens won't forgo his golf vacations in Hawaii now, he may have no choice but to forgo his coquille St.-Jacques and his smoked salmon in the relatively near future.

    Some of the most significant climate change events were the result of volcanos, i.e. essentially instantaneous. And the results were not all bad. The polar bear is a variant of the brown bear that was having trouble with climate change about 80 million years ago, as I recall. There’s some confusion about oceans. These waters will not see a PH below seven as far as I can see. And if it’s not below seven, it’s not acidic. And “renewable energy” is not scientifically sound. Entropy you know.

    The climate change crowd is selling an immiscible mixture of science and rather silly marketing themes. I prefer my science straight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Wally says: • Website
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    It is the rate of change which is unprecedented. Animals and plants will not be able to keep up. The polar bears will be the first to go, perhaps followed by the resplendent quetzal.

    Man is certainly on the list; do you think he is adapting well? He could start by taking small steps, like forgoing golf vacations in Hawaii.

    The excess carbon from Co2 buildup in the atmosphere has to go somewhere; some of it is stored in the atmosphere itself, but since the mass of the oceans is far greater than the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean can hold more carbon , so a lot of the carbon is going into the oceans as carbonic acid:

    "When carbon dioxide dissolves in this ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This leads to higher acidity, mainly near the surface, which has been proven to inhibit shell growth in marine animals and is suspected as a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish."

    ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/.../critical-issues-ocean-acidification

    So, if Homo sapiens won't forgo his golf vacations in Hawaii now, he may have no choice but to forgo his coquille St.-Jacques and his smoked salmon in the relatively near future.

    Tilley curiously said:

    “The excess carbon from Co2 buildup in the atmosphere has to go somewhere; some of it is stored in the atmosphere itself, but since the mass of the oceans is far greater than the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean can hold more carbon , so a lot of the carbon is going into the oceans as carbonic acid”

    So then what is the right amount? What amount is not ‘excessive’?

    And guess what, CO2 has been much higher while temperatures were much lower.

    You’re in over your head.
    see:

    http://principia-scientific.org/

    Citing the leftist agenda driven NatGeo makes you look foolish, and …. leftist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You're welcome!

    ...to your ignorance.

    And you’re welcome to believe in the impossible.

    The Globe Has Not Been Warming . . . So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?

    http://principia-scientific.org/globe-not-warming-called-global-warming/

    much more here:

    http://principia-scientific.org/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Garbage in, garbage out from Menon. There is no earth ‘greenhouse’ effect.

    The Globe Has Not Been Warming . . . So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?

    http://principia-scientific.org/globe-not-warming-called-global-warming/

    ‘To be 33C or not to be 33C’ Greenhouse Gas Fallacy Exposed

    http://principia-scientific.org/33c-not-33c-greenhouse-gas-fallacy-exposed/

    No Special Greenhouse Gas Effect on Earth, Venus or Mars

    http://principia-scientific.org/no-greenhouse-gas-effect-earth-venus-mars/

    Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Cool the Earth!

    http://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gases-atmosphere-cool-earth/

    more:

    http://principia-scientific.org/?s=greenhouse

    “No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”
    - Justin Trudeau, ‘leftist’ Prime Minister of Canada

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Backwoods Bob
    "Climate Denying". "Climate Terror". The left is apparently short on coherent emotional labels. Did you think we wouldn't notice that the left was screeching about "warming" before, and is now desperate for a replacement?

    What's been so fascinating is that abusive manipulative people, when their victims catch on to their tactics of shaming, guilt-tripping, lying, and etc. - they know no other means of interaction. So they continue with the same tactics, but become a laughable caricature of themselves.

    It's everywhere you look with the leftist agenda - doubling down, tripling down and twisting themselves into incoherent babbling knots.

    Climate terror. Real murders, real death - "essentially nothing". Oh really? That's why the left has been on such an amazing losing streak politically. But hey - keep it up! This next generation already rejects the left, but this is what they need to really come home to liberty and property rights.

    So thank you!

    You’re welcome!

    …to your ignorance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And you're welcome to believe in the impossible.

    The Globe Has Not Been Warming . . . So Why Is It Called ‘Global’ Warming?
    http://principia-scientific.org/globe-not-warming-called-global-warming/

    much more here:
    http://principia-scientific.org/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Donald Trump’s supporters believe that his election will end business as usual in Washington. The self-glorifying Trump agrees and indeed his has, so far, been the most unorthodox presidency of our era, if not any era. It’s a chaotic and tweet-driven administration that makes headlines daily thanks to scandals, acts of stunning incompetence, rants, accusations,...
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    All the problems listed existed prior to Trump’s candidacy and is why he won the election. He’s been president for all of two months so why blame him for what Clinton-Bush-Obama brought about? If he does nothing about them then that’ll hardly distinguish him from what we’d have had Clinton won. There’s a major flaw in our system whereby a flat-out criminal like Clinton could be offered up as the candidate. Does anybody believe that Clinton as president would have been good for things like improving rates of employment for Americans? She was gung-ho on military confrontation with the Russians over Syria and Ukraine, something most Americans weren’t enthusiastic about. War certainly isn’t good for the environment or for civil liberties. With that stupid, incompetent criminal Clinton in office we’d be sunk. With Trump if we still lose then at least it was worth trying something different. It’s not as if the Clintons are poor you know, the difference being that the Clintons made their money through sheer corruption and velvet-glove graft on an international scale whereas Trump has actually built real, tangible things. We’ll get a clearer picture within the next two years as to what we’re getting so demanding instant miracles is just a smokescreen for the hostility of people who are going to be opposed no matter what. The author is just giving us some dishonest bs in disguise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Terror attacks like the recent one in London send a shudder through Americans. Since 9/11, they have been the definition of what TomDispatch regular Rajan Menon calls “national (in)security.” They've also been the lifeblood of a media machine that loves to focus 24/7 on immediate and obvious horrors (especially against folks like “us”). In the...
  • Making America Insecure Again

    I feel sorry for politicians. Imagine how tough an act it is to keep coming up with just enough “the sky is falling scenarios” to convince people that they need you to protect them.

    “…but you understand the game behind the Curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the Government.”

    -From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 14 March 1794

    We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my opinion, be the ruin of our country. If the existence of those dangers cannot be proved, if there be no apprehension of wars, if there be no rumors of wars, it will place the subject in a different light, and plainly evince to the world that there cannot be any reason for adopting measures which we apprehend to be ruinous and destructive.

    William Grayson, We have been told of Phantoms, 11 June 1788

    http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/grayson01.html#ixzz3CsMi4gSo

    Necessity hath no law. Feigned necessities, imagined necessities… are the greatest cozenage that men can put upon the Providence of God, and make pretenses to break known rules by.

    - Oliver Cromwell, Speech to the First Protectorate Parliament (12 September 1654)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Climate Denying”. “Climate Terror”. The left is apparently short on coherent emotional labels. Did you think we wouldn’t notice that the left was screeching about “warming” before, and is now desperate for a replacement?

    What’s been so fascinating is that abusive manipulative people, when their victims catch on to their tactics of shaming, guilt-tripping, lying, and etc. – they know no other means of interaction. So they continue with the same tactics, but become a laughable caricature of themselves.

    It’s everywhere you look with the leftist agenda – doubling down, tripling down and twisting themselves into incoherent babbling knots.

    Climate terror. Real murders, real death – “essentially nothing”. Oh really? That’s why the left has been on such an amazing losing streak politically. But hey – keep it up! This next generation already rejects the left, but this is what they need to really come home to liberty and property rights.

    So thank you!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You're welcome!

    ...to your ignorance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @OutWest
    When was the climate not changing? Climate stasis would likely be of greater concern than change. Just 15,000 years ago half of North America was under ice. Some of that ice is only now melting. That’s what glaciers do when they’re not growing. Stay the same –not so much.

    It is the rate of change which is unprecedented. Animals and plants will not be able to keep up. The polar bears will be the first to go, perhaps followed by the resplendent quetzal.

    Man is certainly on the list; do you think he is adapting well? He could start by taking small steps, like forgoing golf vacations in Hawaii.

    The excess carbon from Co2 buildup in the atmosphere has to go somewhere; some of it is stored in the atmosphere itself, but since the mass of the oceans is far greater than the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean can hold more carbon , so a lot of the carbon is going into the oceans as carbonic acid:

    “When carbon dioxide dissolves in this ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This leads to higher acidity, mainly near the surface, which has been proven to inhibit shell growth in marine animals and is suspected as a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish.”

    ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/…/critical-issues-ocean-acidification

    So, if Homo sapiens won’t forgo his golf vacations in Hawaii now, he may have no choice but to forgo his coquille St.-Jacques and his smoked salmon in the relatively near future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Tilley curiously said:

    "The excess carbon from Co2 buildup in the atmosphere has to go somewhere; some of it is stored in the atmosphere itself, but since the mass of the oceans is far greater than the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean can hold more carbon , so a lot of the carbon is going into the oceans as carbonic acid"

    So then what is the right amount? What amount is not 'excessive'?

    And guess what, CO2 has been much higher while temperatures were much lower.

    You're in over your head.
    see:
    http://principia-scientific.org/

    Citing the leftist agenda driven NatGeo makes you look foolish, and .... leftist.

    , @OutWest
    Some of the most significant climate change events were the result of volcanos, i.e. essentially instantaneous. And the results were not all bad. The polar bear is a variant of the brown bear that was having trouble with climate change about 80 million years ago, as I recall. There’s some confusion about oceans. These waters will not see a PH below seven as far as I can see. And if it’s not below seven, it’s not acidic. And “renewable energy” is not scientifically sound. Entropy you know.

    The climate change crowd is selling an immiscible mixture of science and rather silly marketing themes. I prefer my science straight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • When was the climate not changing? Climate stasis would likely be of greater concern than change. Just 15,000 years ago half of North America was under ice. Some of that ice is only now melting. That’s what glaciers do when they’re not growing. Stay the same –not so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    It is the rate of change which is unprecedented. Animals and plants will not be able to keep up. The polar bears will be the first to go, perhaps followed by the resplendent quetzal.

    Man is certainly on the list; do you think he is adapting well? He could start by taking small steps, like forgoing golf vacations in Hawaii.

    The excess carbon from Co2 buildup in the atmosphere has to go somewhere; some of it is stored in the atmosphere itself, but since the mass of the oceans is far greater than the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean can hold more carbon , so a lot of the carbon is going into the oceans as carbonic acid:

    "When carbon dioxide dissolves in this ocean, carbonic acid is formed. This leads to higher acidity, mainly near the surface, which has been proven to inhibit shell growth in marine animals and is suspected as a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish."

    ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/.../critical-issues-ocean-acidification

    So, if Homo sapiens won't forgo his golf vacations in Hawaii now, he may have no choice but to forgo his coquille St.-Jacques and his smoked salmon in the relatively near future.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Namaste, Sri Menon! May Lord Krishna pour His sweet amrita upon thy red dot! Om!

    Here is one very courageous act of the Obama Administration in fighting “climate change”: Keeping Ursus maritimus (the polar bear) off the Endangered Species List. That way, his administration was not legally bound to take concrete actions to preserve Arctic sea ice habitat. See: Center for Biological Diversity, “Obama Administration Finalizes Polar Bear Extinction Plan: New Rule Shrugs off Dire Climate Threat to Ice-dependent Animals “.

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/polar-bear-02-19-2013.html

    The fact that Obama flew back and forth to Hawaii a number of times as President for golf vacations – taking Air Force One along for the ride – shows the depth of his commitment to reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.

    May you be reborn as a polar bear in your next incarnation! You will get to work off your karma.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • How does one deny climate?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • > If you really want to think about acts of “terror,” consider what Donald Trump and his climate-denying crew at the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere in his administration would like to do to the environmental policies of the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

    That’s a clever trick you’ve found there shitskin. Who taught you how to signal to the Earth Mother Cult like that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Donald Trump’s supporters believe that his election will end business as usual in Washington. The self-glorifying Trump agrees and indeed his has, so far, been the most unorthodox presidency of our era, if not any era. It’s a chaotic and tweet-driven administration that makes headlines daily thanks to scandals, acts of stunning incompetence, rants, accusations,...
  • There was a choice: Trump – or Clinton, the golden girl of the the neoliberal establishment, neoliberalism incarnate. American voters did the right thing: gave the middle finger to the establishment. They sent the message. That’s an occasion to be happy, not to bitch and moan about Trump, let alone his long-dead father…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Terror attacks like the recent one in London send a shudder through Americans. Since 9/11, they have been the definition of what TomDispatch regular Rajan Menon calls “national (in)security.” They've also been the lifeblood of a media machine that loves to focus 24/7 on immediate and obvious horrors (especially against folks like “us”). In the...
  • I was just noticing how green the California desert was the other day and it hit me, how much has the US committed to ending global warming by sending all this water down to Southern California so that all these plants can flourish and capture all that carbon dioxide?

    The whole concept of global warming is a big joke since there are so many counter balancing forces going on that nobody even considers in these models.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This and health care are distractions. Polls show that climate change is not high on the list of voter’s priorities.

    What ails the US is leftism and institutions who radicalize normal people into believing absolute equality. The enemy is still media+academia, without which the left would have very little. Granted, in a liberal democracy it’s not easy to fix those two problems, but Trump should at least be focusing his efforts on them instead of this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Obama ran over the entire country in his rented vehicle. The coal thing is just one of the items of idiocy he committed. The country will probably never recover from Obama’s mendacity.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ace
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Forget those “bad hombres down there” in Mexico that U.S. troops might take out. Ignore the way National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” and the new president insisted, that, when it comes to that country, “nothing is off the table.” Instead, focus for a moment on something truly scary: the possibility that...
  • @Joe Wong
    So you admit what "Simon in London" spewed is a Western version of "wet dreams?"

    I have never denied it :P

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon • Disclaimer says:

    U.S. General Seeks ‘a Few Thousand’ More Troops in Afghanistan …

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/us-afghanistan-troops.html

    Feb 9, 2017 – WASHINGTON — The commander of the American-led international military force in Afghanistan, warning that the United States and its NATO allies are facing a “stalemate,” told Congress on Thursday that he needed a few thousand additional troops to more effectively train and ..

    The Afghanistan War started in 2001. Whatever strategic military goal or political objective the US was or is trying to achieve is far from within reach in 2017. The idea that the US can get what it desires from war with Russia or China just sounds absurd to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Astuteobservor II
    this is like the chinese version of "wet dreams"

    So you admit what “Simon in London” spewed is a Western version of “wet dreams?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I have never denied it :P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Your last sentence is probably the key to ultimate understanding.

    You say “US-dominated global legal establishment” as though that is a fectual description of the reality rather than a Chinese paranoid view. Would you care to elaborate and justify?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    I would hope the US would actually try to avoid the kind of scenario you paintbin your last par. And while your argument on cost makes sense I am not sure that it adds up. Distance from the US doesn't matter. In fact you provide the amswer which would be to have the Koreans do the job with Philippino labour. The islets wouldn't need many oeople on them and indeed some might be tourist attractions. Fortfied ones could be defended with mines.

    A lot depends on whether you are talking about nominally occupied and basically undefended islets intended just to provide legalist claims, or Chinese-style full blown and defensible military outposts.

    The former would be relatively cheap and would serve the purpose of providing improved pretexts for military confrontation, but little else. The Chinese have already made clear they are not interested in rulings by the US-dominated global legal establishment.

    The latter would, I suspect, involve unacceptable costs for the US, however much they try to outsource the work to local contractors. These are truly colossal public works projects. In the end, as with the Ukraine and Russia, control of the SCS will always matter infinitely more to China than it will to America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Yes, the US is poking its nose in China's back yard, and the US not only can it must because it is the global superpower and there can only be one. Read Mearsheimer to understand why not interfering in every part of the world is a hardly an option. If the US is so worried about annoying China now that China is left alone, in a generation or two China will be number one and then they (in self defence) will be will interfering in the US's backyard. This is the time to pick a argument, and exert military pressure on China with a economy-overheating arms race.

    There is going to be war, a cold war, whereby the US will prevail as against Russia. One county has the world's most powerful economy / innovative technology and thus cannot be defeated--yet. Double down on China and stop them achieving world domination.

    Yes, the US is poking its nose in China’s back yard, and the US not only can it must because it is the global superpower and there can only be one.

    Refreshing as it always is to get to the brute force reality that underlies all the American bullshit about noble causes, you are in serious danger of self-fulfilling prophecy here. And, in truth, it says more about the basic nature of American interaction with the world than about China’s.

    China has an approach to the world that is different from America’s. For all its flaws, it is not a crusading, universalist one like Soviet communism was and US democratism is. There’s every reason to suppose that a globally dominant China will not be as aggressively interfering as the US has been, so long as reasonable deterrent strength is maintained.

    As for “This is the time to pick a[n] argument”, you appear to be rather overly risk-tolerant to those who prefer not to see nuclear powers engaging in military confrontations that risk open war. We survived the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, but it was for sure a very close run thing at times and there’s a good case to be made that only good fortune preserved us. I’m not sure who is worse – you for thinking that you can safely have a “Cold War” with China, or Karlin and Bannon for thinking RAND-style analysis is a safe basis from which to conclude that a limited war can safely be fought and won now and for some confidently predicted window into the near future. But the combination of your thinking and theirs , replicated throughout the US foreign policy elite, might be the end of us all, if a US President falls for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @denk
    The unitedsnake and its 'allies' have been making dry run to blockade the Malacca Straits, its going for the dragon's jugular.
    Inviting Jp, the brutal invader in China during ww2, is like rubbing salt into a gaping wound. !

    'In the event of conflict with China, the US “AirSea Battle” concept envisages northern Australia being the base of operations for a naval blockade of these sea lanes, in order to starve the Chinese economy of oil and other natural resources and strangle its international trade. The key Malacca Straits, through which 80 percent of all Chinese sea-borne imports and exports pass, would also be blockaded in joint operations involving the US, Australia, Japan, Singapore and other allied forces.' [1]

    This must be the ultimate violation of the oh so sacred FON which uncle scam has been bleating 24x7 !

    Dont forget murkka is the only country indicted by the ICC for blatant violation of FON when it planted mines around Nicaragua ports, 1984.

    During the 80's/90's the USN made lots of 'interdictions' on commercial vessels in international waters, looking for 'contraband' cargoes bound for 'terrorists states' like Iran etc.
    Those must be fragrant violations of FON alright.
    1993, One of China's cargo ship the Yinhe was waylaid by the USN on international water, forced to dock at a Saudi port for 'inspection'.
    Beijing should've sued the unitedsnake like what Nicaragua did in 1984.

    True to form,
    USN the high sea pirates now appoints itself the enforcer of FON the SCS !

    hehehehe

    [1]
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/07/tali-j07.html

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/07/tali-j07.html

    ‘India is the other country that is central to US war planning in Asia.

    The US, Japan and Australia have each strengthened their military relations with New Delhi since 2011 and encouraged it to assert itself as a regional power. India, on the basis of assertions that it has “national interests” [sic]in the South China Sea, is making regular naval deployments into the area. In June, four Indian warships toured Singapore and Malaysia as part of an “operational” exercise.’

    India has as much ‘national interest’ in SCS as the unitedsnake and Jp
    …..ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH !
    SCS is China’s economic life line, only China has a national interest there.

    ‘The increasing frequency and sizes of the exercises testifies to the tremendous dangers posed by the provocative US “pivot.” With reckless disregard for the dangers of a nuclear war, the US and its imperialist allies in Australia and Japan, supported by India, are determined to undermine Chinese economic and strategic influence in Asia.’

    India/Jp/murkka, this axis of evil have done much harm to China.
    That they happen to be the most belligerent China baiters today belies their own guilty consciousness perhaps ?
    Fearful of a resurgent China seeking justice ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Joe Wong
    Your comment is the typical brain washed from cradle to grave old days British Empire subjects' uneducated delusional view based on the fallacy that only the White can invent and only the White can succeed.

    If it is a limited war, the American Navy and Air Force will be wiped out within 72 hours as well as all the military bases in Japan and SK by China's massive missiles bombardments from air, warships, submarines and land. The USA military's single point failure weapons will all cease to work due to their GPS and internet communications being hacked by Chinese Space Strategy Corp. Besides most of the American weapons rely on parts from other nations, the EU will use this opportunity to get the American off their backs by withholding their parts and let the American being defected by the Chinese like the Argentinian in the Falklands War due to running out foreign supplied parts and weapons.

    In the last 75 years the amount of wars, atrocities and chaos created by the American in the SE Asia make them the most hated people and nation in the SE Asia, everybody can't wait to help China to put an end to the presence of this do no good psychopath in the SE Asia.

    American initiated aggression war will allow the CCP to rally the Chinese people around it like it did in the war against the Japanese, Korean War and Vietnam War by reminding the Chinese the hundred years of humiliation and suffering as well as the dark age of Unequal Treaties caused by the foreign devil invasions.

    On the other hand, a defeated USA will render Washington totally discredited and weakened that it has no mean to put down the boiling over separatism that has been simmering underneath decades in the USA, the USA will be broken into 7 pieces as projected in some Russian scientists' hypothesis.

    this is like the chinese version of “wet dreams”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    So you admit what "Simon in London" spewed is a Western version of "wet dreams?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Yes, the US is poking its nose in China's back yard, and the US not only can it must because it is the global superpower and there can only be one. Read Mearsheimer to understand why not interfering in every part of the world is a hardly an option. If the US is so worried about annoying China now that China is left alone, in a generation or two China will be number one and then they (in self defence) will be will interfering in the US's backyard. This is the time to pick a argument, and exert military pressure on China with a economy-overheating arms race.

    There is going to be war, a cold war, whereby the US will prevail as against Russia. One county has the world's most powerful economy / innovative technology and thus cannot be defeated--yet. Double down on China and stop them achieving world domination.

    China surpassing the USA in the next decade not in a generation or two is a matter of fact, China not only will surpass the USA in GDP, it will surpass the USA in full spectrum. USA’s decline is USA’s own doing or USA’s own incompetence by spending all the money on losing wars.

    American education is third rated and broken, they rely on the immigrants to do the science and technology works. Americans cannot do maths and cannot read manuals that is a known norm. In addition the skyrocketing USA national debt and excessive military spending are handcuffing the USA spending on R&D like the defunct USSR. The USA is walking the same path as the dying days of the Roman Empire and will soon imploded like the USSR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    Why doesn’t the US (or Japan, or the US and Japan jointly, to mention only some of the possibilities) lease an atoll or reef or three from the Philippines and/or other states and build its own island and facilities?
     
    One point that immediately occurs is cost. If as Steve Sailer recently guesstimated just the repairs to the spillway on one dam will cost "nine figures", how much do you think it would cost the US to construct an entire island and military base facility in the ocean on the other side of the world? Especially if the garrison based there are going to expect US military standards of comfort and facilities?

    Bear in mind the context as outlined in the article referenced by Steve:

    we see similar effects in infrastructure. The first New York City subway opened around 1900. Various sources list lengths from 10 to 20 miles and costs from $30 million to $60 million dollars – I think my sources are capturing it at different stages of construction with different numbers of extensions. In any case, it suggests costs of between $1.5 million to $6 million dollars/mile = $1-4 million per kilometer. That looks like it’s about the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $100 million/kilometer today, though I’m very uncertain about that estimate. In contrast, Vox notes that a new New York subway line being opened this year costs about $2.2 billion per kilometer, suggesting a cost increase of twenty times – although I’m very uncertain about this estimate.

    Things become clearer when you compare them country-by-country. The same Vox article notes that Paris, Berlin, and Copenhagen subways cost about $250 million per kilometer, almost 90% less. Yet even those European subways are overpriced compared to Korea, where a kilometer of subway in Seoul costs $40 million/km (another Korean subway project cost $80 million/km). This is a difference of 50x between Seoul and New York for apparently comparable services.
     
    Considerations On Cost Disease

    China can afford to do these things not just because it's in their backyard rather than on the other side of the world, but because they can do public works at a fraction of the costs the US pays.

    Bearing in mind that neither freedom of navigation in the SCS, nor (as we know from the Iraq and Kosovo wars) the supposed "principle of enforcing the rule of law" is actually of any real concern for the US, for which noisy disputes over islands in the SCS are solely for the purpose of generating pretexts for confrontation of a rising rival power and preserving its past dominance of the region, is it worth spending that much just to try to gain a slightly better pretext? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to make a few provocative military forays there in the hope the Chinese might make the same mistake Japan made in the face of similar US hostility, and sink a US destroyer, or something like that?

    A US war plane has been taken down and A US war equipment has been confiscated, so what is the American waiting for? Are you saying the American is all like Donald Trump, big mouth loose cannons?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Simon in London
    I think a US-China naval war in the South China Sea is definitely possible, especially if both parties believe they can prevent it escalating into a nuclear holocaust. Looking at the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the UK-Argentine Falklands War provides hints at how such a conflict might be 'quarantined', with both sides restricting the area of operations (South China Sea, no attacks on enemy mainland) and weaponry (no nukes). A classic inter-state 'limited war' of the kind that was standard 1815-1914.

    What would be the result of such a clash? My guess would be that China would 'lose', in the sense of losing control of many or all of its bases in the South China Sea, but also 'win' in the sense of inflicting heavy losses on the USA, and the result would be something like the Yom Kippur War in which both sides might claim victory. This 'peace with honour' result is always the best you can hope for in inter-state war. Especially if China got to retain some territory, she could claim to have successfully repelled attack by a stronger enemy, and everyone would be happy (except possibly the relatives of the dead).

    Conversely, an overwhelming victory for either side could be very bad, destabilising the loser. A defeated Chinese leadership would be discredited and might be overthrown. There might even be a disastrous State Collapse of the type William S Lind warns against, turning east Asia into the Middle East. Defeated but intact China would be a less severe result - it would nurse its wounds and plot revenge, but have limited ability to gain revenge in the near term. The world would darken but this might be recoverable.

    A defeated US leadership would likely also be overthrown (impeached/forced resignation) but this would not likely result in US State collapse. A likelier result would be that the US under new leadership, seeing itself as still militarily stronger, would refuse peace and seek a rematch/revenge on more favourable terms, resulting in a long drawn out war with the possibility of nuclear escalation and global holocaust (especially if Russia were drawn in on the US side).

    Your comment is the typical brain washed from cradle to grave old days British Empire subjects’ uneducated delusional view based on the fallacy that only the White can invent and only the White can succeed.

    If it is a limited war, the American Navy and Air Force will be wiped out within 72 hours as well as all the military bases in Japan and SK by China’s massive missiles bombardments from air, warships, submarines and land. The USA military’s single point failure weapons will all cease to work due to their GPS and internet communications being hacked by Chinese Space Strategy Corp. Besides most of the American weapons rely on parts from other nations, the EU will use this opportunity to get the American off their backs by withholding their parts and let the American being defected by the Chinese like the Argentinian in the Falklands War due to running out foreign supplied parts and weapons.

    In the last 75 years the amount of wars, atrocities and chaos created by the American in the SE Asia make them the most hated people and nation in the SE Asia, everybody can’t wait to help China to put an end to the presence of this do no good psychopath in the SE Asia.

    American initiated aggression war will allow the CCP to rally the Chinese people around it like it did in the war against the Japanese, Korean War and Vietnam War by reminding the Chinese the hundred years of humiliation and suffering as well as the dark age of Unequal Treaties caused by the foreign devil invasions.

    On the other hand, a defeated USA will render Washington totally discredited and weakened that it has no mean to put down the boiling over separatism that has been simmering underneath decades in the USA, the USA will be broken into 7 pieces as projected in some Russian scientists’ hypothesis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    this is like the chinese version of "wet dreams"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @jacques sheete

    To put a choke hold on China’s energy life line.
     
    I like yer analysis. Although I'm no expert on these matters, it seems clear to me that a lot of the anti-Russia brouhaha is designed to drive a wedge between Russia, with its oil and other resources, and China, with it's markets and manufacturing abilities.

    To me it smells a lot like the Brit meddling in Europe to "maintain a balance of power" that happened to favor London that eventually led to a huge bloodbath in 2 major phases.

    Keeping the Germans and Japanese from accessing sources of oil was, I believe, a significant factor in the big wars of a century ago.

    The unitedsnake and its ‘allies’ have been making dry run to blockade the Malacca Straits, its going for the dragon’s jugular.
    Inviting Jp, the brutal invader in China during ww2, is like rubbing salt into a gaping wound. !

    ‘In the event of conflict with China, the US “AirSea Battle” concept envisages northern Australia being the base of operations for a naval blockade of these sea lanes, in order to starve the Chinese economy of oil and other natural resources and strangle its international trade. The key Malacca Straits, through which 80 percent of all Chinese sea-borne imports and exports pass, would also be blockaded in joint operations involving the US, Australia, Japan, Singapore and other allied forces.’ [1]

    This must be the ultimate violation of the oh so sacred FON which uncle scam has been bleating 24×7 !

    Dont forget murkka is the only country indicted by the ICC for blatant violation of FON when it planted mines around Nicaragua ports, 1984.

    During the 80′s/90′s the USN made lots of ‘interdictions’ on commercial vessels in international waters, looking for ‘contraband’ cargoes bound for ‘terrorists states’ like Iran etc.
    Those must be fragrant violations of FON alright.
    1993, One of China’s cargo ship the Yinhe was waylaid by the USN on international water, forced to dock at a Saudi port for ‘inspection’.
    Beijing should’ve sued the unitedsnake like what Nicaragua did in 1984.

    True to form,
    USN the high sea pirates now appoints itself the enforcer of FON the SCS !

    hehehehe

    [1]

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/07/tali-j07.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/07/tali-j07.html


    'India is the other country that is central to US war planning in Asia.

    The US, Japan and Australia have each strengthened their military relations with New Delhi since 2011 and encouraged it to assert itself as a regional power. India, on the basis of assertions that it has “national interests” [sic]in the South China Sea, is making regular naval deployments into the area. In June, four Indian warships toured Singapore and Malaysia as part of an “operational” exercise.'

    India has as much 'national interest' in SCS as the unitedsnake and Jp
    .....ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH !
    SCS is China's economic life line, only China has a national interest there.

    'The increasing frequency and sizes of the exercises testifies to the tremendous dangers posed by the provocative US “pivot.” With reckless disregard for the dangers of a nuclear war, the US and its imperialist allies in Australia and Japan, supported by India, are determined to undermine Chinese economic and strategic influence in Asia.'

    India/Jp/murkka, this axis of evil have done much harm to China.
    That they happen to be the most belligerent China baiters today belies their own guilty consciousness perhaps ?
    Fearful of a resurgent China seeking justice ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @denk
    'During his first official press briefing on January 23rd, Spicer declared that the United States “is going to make sure we defend our interests there” — in the South China Sea, that is — and that “if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yes, we are going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country.”'

    Spicer you moron,
    China is the one defending its national interest in SCS, where 90% of its energy /commercial shipping go through.
    murkka has zero cargoes passing thru these sea lanes.

    The unitedsnake's interest here are three fold,

    To put a choke hold on China's energy life line.
    In time of hostility, a naval blockade would paralyse Chinese economy and military and force it to surrender.

    To bludgeon ASEAN countries into an anti Chinese outfit under the 'protection' of uncle scam.
    Thats the only way washington can perpetuate its dominant position in Asia cuz it simply couldnt compete with China in economic development.

    Last but not least, to advance Exxon's oil interest in SCS, where it has already been drillig oil for decades around isles claimed by PRC.
    MaY be Rex *Exxon* Tillerson wants SCS all to themselves ?
    hehehe

    In a civic court, if a man claims the 'right' to grab at someone's jugular just in case he doesnt get uppity, he'd be thrown into jail pronto.
    But the Washington mob is an international mafia backed by thousands of nukes', it could get away with anything.

    Trump
    'No more foreign interventions, unless its to defend our national interest'.

    murkkans have been fooled....again. !
    'national interest' has been the carte blanche that launched hundres of wars since 1785 !!

    To put a choke hold on China’s energy life line.

    I like yer analysis. Although I’m no expert on these matters, it seems clear to me that a lot of the anti-Russia brouhaha is designed to drive a wedge between Russia, with its oil and other resources, and China, with it’s markets and manufacturing abilities.

    To me it smells a lot like the Brit meddling in Europe to “maintain a balance of power” that happened to favor London that eventually led to a huge bloodbath in 2 major phases.

    Keeping the Germans and Japanese from accessing sources of oil was, I believe, a significant factor in the big wars of a century ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    The unitedsnake and its 'allies' have been making dry run to blockade the Malacca Straits, its going for the dragon's jugular.
    Inviting Jp, the brutal invader in China during ww2, is like rubbing salt into a gaping wound. !

    'In the event of conflict with China, the US “AirSea Battle” concept envisages northern Australia being the base of operations for a naval blockade of these sea lanes, in order to starve the Chinese economy of oil and other natural resources and strangle its international trade. The key Malacca Straits, through which 80 percent of all Chinese sea-borne imports and exports pass, would also be blockaded in joint operations involving the US, Australia, Japan, Singapore and other allied forces.' [1]

    This must be the ultimate violation of the oh so sacred FON which uncle scam has been bleating 24x7 !

    Dont forget murkka is the only country indicted by the ICC for blatant violation of FON when it planted mines around Nicaragua ports, 1984.

    During the 80's/90's the USN made lots of 'interdictions' on commercial vessels in international waters, looking for 'contraband' cargoes bound for 'terrorists states' like Iran etc.
    Those must be fragrant violations of FON alright.
    1993, One of China's cargo ship the Yinhe was waylaid by the USN on international water, forced to dock at a Saudi port for 'inspection'.
    Beijing should've sued the unitedsnake like what Nicaragua did in 1984.

    True to form,
    USN the high sea pirates now appoints itself the enforcer of FON the SCS !

    hehehehe

    [1]
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/07/tali-j07.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    I agree with those who say there will be no shooting US war with China (or Russia) because historically the US only picks on the little guys
     
    You might well be correct (let's hope so), but there are two reasons for remaining unreassured by your assertion. First, wars don't always start when the participants intend for them to start. And the risk of such an "unintended" war resulting from a miscalculation is probably greatest in the situation of a genuine strategic rivalry with rapidly changing relative status, such as that between the US and China.

    Second, the worry is that the view expressed by Bannon represents a commonly expressed opinion in senior US military and political circles (the kind of people who use people like Bannon as an media conduit for their - inevitably anonymously sourced - opinions), meaning precisely that part of the US strategic decision-making elite actually does believe that China is still one of the little guys, for the next 5-10 years at least.

    Of course you are correct. The possibilities do exist that we get into a shooting war because the decision makers in this country are a bunch of sewer heads and the stakes are high, e.g. maintenance of the dollar as the “reserve” currency.

    I should’ve stated the odds which are probably somewhere around 100 to 1 against a true hot war though. That’s because we’re already at war economically and diplomatically with many countries, and the shooting between the big guys will begin if and when all the other tricks fail.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thanks for the corrections. When I checked my sources the comparison looked closer than I had imagined, especially between crews (without whom…). Since neither is likely to be used for ramming other vessels, they’re both ‘platforms’, and the Type 52 provides a platform for the The YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile poses a significant threat to the U.S. Navy as well as any other potential adversary.The missile has an effective range of 290 nautical miles, a subsonic cruising speed of roughly Mach 0.8 and then before striking its target it enters a terminal stage of supersonic speeds of up to Mach 3, which makes it extremely hard to intercept. It’s a hefty brute, capable of immobilizing or destroying most vessels in a single strike and it will take the USN some years to develop a defense against it. It is also developing a quality much favored by militaries everywhere: quantity. Building of the first vessel the Kunming DDG-172, was commenced in 2012. Since then, a total of nine vessels have been built and, currently, six are being launched. Their AESA radars and AAW and ASW capabilities are more modern and capable than the Burke class, too. While the Type 52 is designed to operate solo, the Burke has a limited capability when operating alone. It can operate to its full potential only when acting as a part of a larger networked carrier battle group (CBG). The Burke is, however, superior to the 52 in the sheer number of missiles that are carried, though not to their size and sophistication. My original comment was designed to draw attention to the fact that Chinese armaments–even in a core area the US has dominated for generations–are now on par with ours: calling the 52 equal, or even superior, to the Burke will not get the speaker laughed out of the room. That’s very, very rapid progress.

    My apologies, I wrote from memory. The Scan Eagle is, indeed, an American drone. The drone I was thinking of is the Xianglong “Soar Dragon.” Either as a platform for the 400 km. range PL-15 air-to-air missile or as a detection platform for the DF-21D or -26D, it leads its field.

    Chinese subs have regularly spooked carrier battle groups by surfacing in their midst. In 2006 an undetected Song (a fairly primitive vessel) surfaced within firing range of the Kitty Hawk battle group and, more recently, a Song successfully stalked the Reagan carrier group. Critics point out that if a relatively inferior sub like the Song can penetrate a carrier’s screen the more capable Type 636.6 is well ahead of current USN ASW capabilities. (In addition to missiles, Chinese subs are armed with Type 65 wake-homing torpedoes that deliver 1,000 lb. warheads from 30 miles away at 60 mph).

    China’s ‘The ASBMs aren’t advanced’. Come, come. They’re not merely advanced, they’re unique. The DF-21D has a 1,000 mile range and delivers a half a ton warhead vertically at 7,500 mph with 100-300 ft. accuracy (the Nimitz deck is 240 x 1,000 ft., the Burke’s length makes it a target). The U.S. Naval Institute says the DF-21D could destroy an aircraft carrier in one strike and admits there is currently no defense against it. Its big brother, the DF-26D, carries its 3,000 lb. warhead 2,000 miles.

    Again, this comparison involves considerable guesswork about all of the weapons and platforms involved. My point is that we are below, at, or near parity with China within 2,000 miles of her shores. That’s a very big deal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @godfree roberts
    Good piece, but a little behind on China's weapons ('U.S. naval and air forces are far more advanced and lethal than their Chinese equivalents') and its legitimate claims to those islands and reefs.

    China's defensive arsenal is (much) more advanced than their American counterparts, from its Type 052D destroyers that are superior to our Arleigh Burke class, to its DF-21D and -41D ASBMs, its Scan Eagle drones, invisible subs, and, as you conceded, an overwhelming geographical advantage.

    China's claims to the islands are pretty well established. State Dept Chief of Spatial and Boundary Analysis, Daniel Dzurek recounting how Japan returned the South China Sea to China after WWII in treaties that adhered to Japan's surrender agreement:

    “Because the Allies, in particular the United Kingdom and the United States, could not agree on which government represented China, no Chinese delegation participated in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Conference. Therefore the Republic of China (Taiwan) negotiated a separate peace treaty with Japan, signed on 28 April 1952. Article 2 of the text included a reference to the San Francisco treaty:

    “It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed in the city of San Francisco in the United States of American on September 8 1951, Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands””

    Republic of China has argued that the explicit reference to the Spratly and Paracel islands in the text of this bilateral treaty implies Japanese recognition of Chinese sovereignty. Samuels and Lu have observed that, unlike the 1951 treaty, the Sino-Japanese text mentions the Spratly and Paracel islands in the same sentence as Taiwan and the Pescadores islands. The latter are generally recognized as Chinese territories. Moreover, according to the negotiating record Japan insisted that the renunciation article deal only with Chinese territory. This shows that the ROC and Japan viewed the islands of Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Spratlys, and tha Paracels as having a similar status – that is, belonging to China”.

    [https://books.google.co.th/books?id=o5P4U4UlucMC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Daniel+Dzurek+“Because+the+Allies,+in+particular+the+United+Kingdom+and+the+United+States,+could+not+agree&source=bl&ots=46YA_EwQss&sig=pBcNObrlzocctryY0wJeZFuDtn0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6abSvqDPAhUHs48KHXImDvUQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Daniel%20Dzurek%20“Because%20the%20Allies%2C%20in%20particular%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20and%20the%20United%20States%2C%20could%20not%20agree&f=false]

    Your information is wrong. Explain how the Type-052 is superior to the Arleigh Burke class?

    Scan Eagle is an American drone.

    Chinese subs are far from “invisible” and more than a generation behind.

    The ASBMs aren’t advanced. Nobody else employs conventional ballistic missiles for fear of starting a nuclear war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • just in case he gets uppity,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ‘During his first official press briefing on January 23rd, Spicer declared that the United States “is going to make sure we defend our interests there” — in the South China Sea, that is — and that “if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yes, we are going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country.”’

    Spicer you moron,
    China is the one defending its national interest in SCS, where 90% of its energy /commercial shipping go through.
    murkka has zero cargoes passing thru these sea lanes.

    The unitedsnake’s interest here are three fold,

    To put a choke hold on China’s energy life line.
    In time of hostility, a naval blockade would paralyse Chinese economy and military and force it to surrender.

    To bludgeon ASEAN countries into an anti Chinese outfit under the ‘protection’ of uncle scam.
    Thats the only way washington can perpetuate its dominant position in Asia cuz it simply couldnt compete with China in economic development.

    Last but not least, to advance Exxon’s oil interest in SCS, where it has already been drillig oil for decades around isles claimed by PRC.
    MaY be Rex *Exxon* Tillerson wants SCS all to themselves ?
    hehehe

    In a civic court, if a man claims the ‘right’ to grab at someone’s jugular just in case he doesnt get uppity, he’d be thrown into jail pronto.
    But the Washington mob is an international mafia backed by thousands of nukes’, it could get away with anything.

    Trump
    ‘No more foreign interventions, unless its to defend our national interest’.

    murkkans have been fooled….again. !
    national interest‘ has been the carte blanche that launched hundres of wars since 1785 !!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    To put a choke hold on China’s energy life line.
     
    I like yer analysis. Although I'm no expert on these matters, it seems clear to me that a lot of the anti-Russia brouhaha is designed to drive a wedge between Russia, with its oil and other resources, and China, with it's markets and manufacturing abilities.

    To me it smells a lot like the Brit meddling in Europe to "maintain a balance of power" that happened to favor London that eventually led to a huge bloodbath in 2 major phases.

    Keeping the Germans and Japanese from accessing sources of oil was, I believe, a significant factor in the big wars of a century ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @jacques sheete
    I agree with those who say there will be no shooting US war with China (or Russia) because historically the US only picks on the little guys (yes, despite the Allied propaganda, Germany and Japan were little guys) and even then it doesn't often come out smelling like a rose.


    Secondly, why bother fighting an actual war when you can get the same benefits from making up threats? War, after all, is the health of the state and nowadays rumors of wars are sufficient to keep the people feeling dependent on the feds.

    It's an old scam by an old racket.


    “…but you understand the game behind the Curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the Government.”

    From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 14 March 1794
     

    The constitution of the US was imposed partly through the use of hyping threats.

    We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my opinion, be the ruin of our country. If the existence of those dangers cannot be proved, if there be no apprehension of wars, if there be no rumors of wars, it will place the subject in a different light, and plainly evince to the world that there cannot be any reason for adopting measures which we apprehend to be ruinous and destructive.

    William Grayson, 11 June 1788
    Read more: William Grayson: We have been told of Phantoms

    http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/grayson01.html#ixzz3CsMi4gSo

     

    I agree with those who say there will be no shooting US war with China (or Russia) because historically the US only picks on the little guys

    You might well be correct (let’s hope so), but there are two reasons for remaining unreassured by your assertion. First, wars don’t always start when the participants intend for them to start. And the risk of such an “unintended” war resulting from a miscalculation is probably greatest in the situation of a genuine strategic rivalry with rapidly changing relative status, such as that between the US and China.

    Second, the worry is that the view expressed by Bannon represents a commonly expressed opinion in senior US military and political circles (the kind of people who use people like Bannon as an media conduit for their – inevitably anonymously sourced – opinions), meaning precisely that part of the US strategic decision-making elite actually does believe that China is still one of the little guys, for the next 5-10 years at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Of course you are correct. The possibilities do exist that we get into a shooting war because the decision makers in this country are a bunch of sewer heads and the stakes are high, e.g. maintenance of the dollar as the "reserve" currency.

    I should've stated the odds which are probably somewhere around 100 to 1 against a true hot war though. That's because we're already at war economically and diplomatically with many countries, and the shooting between the big guys will begin if and when all the other tricks fail.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I agree with those who say there will be no shooting US war with China (or Russia) because historically the US only picks on the little guys (yes, despite the Allied propaganda, Germany and Japan were little guys) and even then it doesn’t often come out smelling like a rose.

    Secondly, why bother fighting an actual war when you can get the same benefits from making up threats? War, after all, is the health of the state and nowadays rumors of wars are sufficient to keep the people feeling dependent on the feds.

    It’s an old scam by an old racket.

    “…but you understand the game behind the Curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the Government.”

    From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 14 March 1794

    The constitution of the US was imposed partly through the use of hyping threats.

    We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my opinion, be the ruin of our country. If the existence of those dangers cannot be proved, if there be no apprehension of wars, if there be no rumors of wars, it will place the subject in a different light, and plainly evince to the world that there cannot be any reason for adopting measures which we apprehend to be ruinous and destructive.

    William Grayson, 11 June 1788
    Read more: William Grayson: We have been told of Phantoms

    http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/grayson01.html#ixzz3CsMi4gSo

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I agree with those who say there will be no shooting US war with China (or Russia) because historically the US only picks on the little guys
     
    You might well be correct (let's hope so), but there are two reasons for remaining unreassured by your assertion. First, wars don't always start when the participants intend for them to start. And the risk of such an "unintended" war resulting from a miscalculation is probably greatest in the situation of a genuine strategic rivalry with rapidly changing relative status, such as that between the US and China.

    Second, the worry is that the view expressed by Bannon represents a commonly expressed opinion in senior US military and political circles (the kind of people who use people like Bannon as an media conduit for their - inevitably anonymously sourced - opinions), meaning precisely that part of the US strategic decision-making elite actually does believe that China is still one of the little guys, for the next 5-10 years at least.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SimplePseudonymicHamdle
    The US interests are :
    1) freedom of navigation by commercial vessels
    2) peaceful resolution of disputes by conflicting parties with interests in the region's natural resources

    On -1-, there is no actual threat to US Merchant Marine by China

    None

    On -2- , one can see many ways the US could throw it's leverage around to help motivate China to play nice with its neighbors

    But to go to war over some other country's legal claim on undersea resources that the US has no claim itself to, isn't just foolish, it's criminal.

    eh, this isn’t about resources but about remaining #1. we stir up the tensions in the SCS so we can “show” china’s SCS neighbors how dangerous china is. so they will ally with us against china. japan is playing along because it wants to use this to finally get back on it’s own feet 70 years after WWII. TPP was an attempt at bribing those countries with money :) also locks them into a trade treaty that supersedes the govts that signs it. all of this relates to the asian pivot. we want to lock china out of the lucrative south east asian market in the near future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anatoly Karlin
    Bannon's 5-10 years comment is eerily accurate - that is almost precisely the time left during which the US will retain full-spectrum military superiority over China, including in the SCS.

    Chinese naval power will probably overtake America's sometime around 2040. However, China has the luxury of being able to concentrate all its naval assets to one ocean, whereas USPACOM has traditionally hosted a third of total US naval assets (though this share is going to increase to 60% by 2020); and of course it has the advantage of the defense, including much shorter supply lines plus its islands essentially functioning as unsinkable aircraft carriers.

    As such, the US will find it considerably more costly to grind out a victory by 2020, and the overall result will start coming into question by 2025-2030.

    Bannon’s 5-10 years comment is eerily accurate – that is almost precisely the time left during which the US will retain full-spectrum military superiority over China, including in the SCS.

    This is the strategy equivalent of a newspaper columnist reporting that “Clinton is ahead of Trump by 2.25%” based upon a poll with margins of error of 5%. It’s the fallacy of over-precision.

    You, of course, do not have the facts required to make such an assessment as anything other than a guess. That’s not a criticism of you in particular, nobody has those facts because those who know what one side has in terms of secret technologies and deployments are inevitably not privy to more than informed guesses as to what the other side has. And even if they did, nobody knows how effectively many of the most important systems (satellite tracking and anti-satellite weapons, for instance, jamming technologies, stealth systems etc) will actually work in a real war between near peer powers.

    The fact is you do not even know with any confidence whether the US does in fact retain the capacity for full spectrum military superiority over China in the SCS today, let alone in five or ten years time, or how it will change over that timescale. You make guesses based upon guesses.

    There’s nothing wrong with making guesses based upon guesses, expertise and experience – that’s all that is available in strategic affairs. What is wrong is to then come out with an unwarrantedly firm conclusion, particularly when that conclusion might lead people to conclude that not only is it “safe” to fight a war of aggression, but that the window for doing so is closing rapidly.

    There was a time when it was beyond reasonable doubt that the US would win a naval war with China in the SCS, or over Taiwan for that matter. There will most likely be a time, as China grows in power relative to the US, when that is no longer the case and the best that can be said is that the outcome is uncertain. But to claim to be able to assess that date with any confidence to +/- 5 years is simply implausible.

    My own guess, fwiw, is that the time when the US could be very confident of winning such a war passed a decade or so ago, given that the US does not know what technologies China has deployed to locate targets in the meantime, but knows that its ships are vulnerable to missiles now at almost any operational range if they can be located, and the US does not know how many missiles and of what kind China has deployed or could deploy quickly in a confrontation, and the US does not know how effective its own anti-satellite forces will prove in practice, does not know how effectively its air forces and stand off weapons will perform at targeting Chinese systems (far less well than they expect if the Kosovo war is any guide), and does not know how aggressive the Chinese will be prepared to be in targeting US and allied bases in the region.

    This kind of assessment coming from Bannon tends to give the impression that dangerous over-confidence and unwarranted urgency might be prevalent in the US strategic affairs community, of the kind that historically has lead to disastrous miscalculations and disastrous wars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jason Liu
    And what good would it do the US to go to war with China?

    Those on the American right essentially make the same mistake as rightists everywhere. They imagine the #1 enemy to be an outsider, a foreign tribe, when their #1 enemy are domestic traitors who look and sound just like them. It is not ISIS/China/Iran/Russia that inflicts social ills like pluralism and equality on the American people.

    America is insulated by two oceans. Any kind of civil invasion (i.e. mass immigration) is mostly caused by Americans, Nice White Ladies and so on.

    And what good would it do the US to go to war with China?

    Under present circumstances, none.

    The problem will come when the credit cycle ends and neither will have economic “growth” to help placate their populations.

    In the US the problem population will be unproductive urban populations who must be weaned off of social programs. In China the problem will be peasants who have migrated to cities for work but who are suddenly without jobs.

    I’m not saying it will be “good” to have war to reduce population, but there will definitely be pressure driving things in that direction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The US interests are :
    1) freedom of navigation by commercial vessels
    2) peaceful resolution of disputes by conflicting parties with interests in the region’s natural resources

    On -1-, there is no actual threat to US Merchant Marine by China

    None

    On -2- , one can see many ways the US could throw it’s leverage around to help motivate China to play nice with its neighbors

    But to go to war over some other country’s legal claim on undersea resources that the US has no claim itself to, isn’t just foolish, it’s criminal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    eh, this isn't about resources but about remaining #1. we stir up the tensions in the SCS so we can "show" china's SCS neighbors how dangerous china is. so they will ally with us against china. japan is playing along because it wants to use this to finally get back on it's own feet 70 years after WWII. TPP was an attempt at bribing those countries with money :) also locks them into a trade treaty that supersedes the govts that signs it. all of this relates to the asian pivot. we want to lock china out of the lucrative south east asian market in the near future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • China is following the time honored policy of colonize and claim. These are ‘uninhabited’ islands, reefs, and atolls. They show up, build, then own it. Why should other countries get to claim the oil wealth if they are too cheap to make the same investment, why should our sailors and airman die so that Vietnam can have more oil fields, or Japan keep a claim from their imperial conquests. Let them fight the Chinese. Our Chickenhawks are addicted to sending other people to war.

    I can’t wait for Gen. Jack Keane to bellow that we have to rename the waters the ‘East Asian and South Asian Seas’ just like we renamed the Persian Gulf the ‘Arab’ Gulf. Jack Keane and the Chickenhawks can fight the Chinese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Bannon’s 5-10 years comment is eerily accurate – that is almost precisely the time left during which the US will retain full-spectrum military superiority over China, including in the SCS.

    Chinese naval power will probably overtake America’s sometime around 2040. However, China has the luxury of being able to concentrate all its naval assets to one ocean, whereas USPACOM has traditionally hosted a third of total US naval assets (though this share is going to increase to 60% by 2020); and of course it has the advantage of the defense, including much shorter supply lines plus its islands essentially functioning as unsinkable aircraft carriers.

    As such, the US will find it considerably more costly to grind out a victory by 2020, and the overall result will start coming into question by 2025-2030.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Bannon’s 5-10 years comment is eerily accurate – that is almost precisely the time left during which the US will retain full-spectrum military superiority over China, including in the SCS.
     
    This is the strategy equivalent of a newspaper columnist reporting that "Clinton is ahead of Trump by 2.25%" based upon a poll with margins of error of 5%. It's the fallacy of over-precision.

    You, of course, do not have the facts required to make such an assessment as anything other than a guess. That's not a criticism of you in particular, nobody has those facts because those who know what one side has in terms of secret technologies and deployments are inevitably not privy to more than informed guesses as to what the other side has. And even if they did, nobody knows how effectively many of the most important systems (satellite tracking and anti-satellite weapons, for instance, jamming technologies, stealth systems etc) will actually work in a real war between near peer powers.

    The fact is you do not even know with any confidence whether the US does in fact retain the capacity for full spectrum military superiority over China in the SCS today, let alone in five or ten years time, or how it will change over that timescale. You make guesses based upon guesses.

    There's nothing wrong with making guesses based upon guesses, expertise and experience - that's all that is available in strategic affairs. What is wrong is to then come out with an unwarrantedly firm conclusion, particularly when that conclusion might lead people to conclude that not only is it "safe" to fight a war of aggression, but that the window for doing so is closing rapidly.

    There was a time when it was beyond reasonable doubt that the US would win a naval war with China in the SCS, or over Taiwan for that matter. There will most likely be a time, as China grows in power relative to the US, when that is no longer the case and the best that can be said is that the outcome is uncertain. But to claim to be able to assess that date with any confidence to +/- 5 years is simply implausible.

    My own guess, fwiw, is that the time when the US could be very confident of winning such a war passed a decade or so ago, given that the US does not know what technologies China has deployed to locate targets in the meantime, but knows that its ships are vulnerable to missiles now at almost any operational range if they can be located, and the US does not know how many missiles and of what kind China has deployed or could deploy quickly in a confrontation, and the US does not know how effective its own anti-satellite forces will prove in practice, does not know how effectively its air forces and stand off weapons will perform at targeting Chinese systems (far less well than they expect if the Kosovo war is any guide), and does not know how aggressive the Chinese will be prepared to be in targeting US and allied bases in the region.

    This kind of assessment coming from Bannon tends to give the impression that dangerous over-confidence and unwarranted urgency might be prevalent in the US strategic affairs community, of the kind that historically has lead to disastrous miscalculations and disastrous wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @mtn cur
    The failure of the USA to maintain its borders due to greedy fat cats points to the need to I D and penalize those who profited from hiring illegals. That said, liberals enjoy rewriting the history of the 19th century also, no credit to the fat cats who ruled Mexico and lost the northern half through incompetence and corruption.

    We have an e-verify system in place. As we all know Obama and the political hacks never intended to enforce it’s use. I have a feeling that is all about to change under Trump. Enforce the use of E-Verify and penalize companies for violations and illegals will have no choice but to go back where they came from. If they can’t afford the transportation the Federal government will assist.

    E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. E-Verify is fast, free and easy to use – and it’s the best way employers can ensure a legal workforce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • No, there will be no war with China. Trump is not a lunatic, he is a businessman….Of course, such a war would be disastrous, with China having all the defensive advantages, and would destroy his Presidency.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    If these illegals make such valuable contributions, then why is Mexico refusing t0 take them back?
     
    Source?

    Source?… his wild imagination, what else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wally
    Sophomoric nonsense from mtn cur about 'Mexico', some points:

    It's wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the US Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-White ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-Whites who created the US.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain). See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    Interestingly, these ‘undocumented immigrants’ still want desperately to live near the gringo. Why? They get richer that way.

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico? After all, it's Mexico they all want to leave.

    It's Euro-whites who they follow around.

    Mexican nationals already in the territories (all 75,000 of them!) were granted US citizenship, hence “Hispanics” were all considered White until Nixon created a separate category.

    USA paid Mexico $15 million for land that Mexico had ZERO interest in and that held 1% of Mexico’s population…

    Brown-skinned Mexicans have no legitimate ancestral claim on the southwest US. Their ancestors lived elsewhere.

    The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all Euro-white tussle between imperial powers.

    If these illegals make such valuable contributions, then why is Mexico refusing t0 take them back?

    The failure of the USA to maintain its borders due to greedy fat cats points to the need to I D and penalize those who profited from hiring illegals. That said, liberals enjoy rewriting the history of the 19th century also, no credit to the fat cats who ruled Mexico and lost the northern half through incompetence and corruption.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kek
    We have an e-verify system in place. As we all know Obama and the political hacks never intended to enforce it's use. I have a feeling that is all about to change under Trump. Enforce the use of E-Verify and penalize companies for violations and illegals will have no choice but to go back where they came from. If they can't afford the transportation the Federal government will assist.

    E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. E-Verify is fast, free and easy to use – and it's the best way employers can ensure a legal workforce.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wally
    Sophomoric nonsense from mtn cur about 'Mexico', some points:

    It's wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the US Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-White ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-Whites who created the US.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain). See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    Interestingly, these ‘undocumented immigrants’ still want desperately to live near the gringo. Why? They get richer that way.

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico? After all, it's Mexico they all want to leave.

    It's Euro-whites who they follow around.

    Mexican nationals already in the territories (all 75,000 of them!) were granted US citizenship, hence “Hispanics” were all considered White until Nixon created a separate category.

    USA paid Mexico $15 million for land that Mexico had ZERO interest in and that held 1% of Mexico’s population…

    Brown-skinned Mexicans have no legitimate ancestral claim on the southwest US. Their ancestors lived elsewhere.

    The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all Euro-white tussle between imperial powers.

    If these illegals make such valuable contributions, then why is Mexico refusing t0 take them back?

    If these illegals make such valuable contributions, then why is Mexico refusing t0 take them back?

    Source?

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Source?... his wild imagination, what else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    Why doesn’t the US (or Japan, or the US and Japan jointly, to mention only some of the possibilities) lease an atoll or reef or three from the Philippines and/or other states and build its own island and facilities?
     
    One point that immediately occurs is cost. If as Steve Sailer recently guesstimated just the repairs to the spillway on one dam will cost "nine figures", how much do you think it would cost the US to construct an entire island and military base facility in the ocean on the other side of the world? Especially if the garrison based there are going to expect US military standards of comfort and facilities?

    Bear in mind the context as outlined in the article referenced by Steve:

    we see similar effects in infrastructure. The first New York City subway opened around 1900. Various sources list lengths from 10 to 20 miles and costs from $30 million to $60 million dollars – I think my sources are capturing it at different stages of construction with different numbers of extensions. In any case, it suggests costs of between $1.5 million to $6 million dollars/mile = $1-4 million per kilometer. That looks like it’s about the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $100 million/kilometer today, though I’m very uncertain about that estimate. In contrast, Vox notes that a new New York subway line being opened this year costs about $2.2 billion per kilometer, suggesting a cost increase of twenty times – although I’m very uncertain about this estimate.

    Things become clearer when you compare them country-by-country. The same Vox article notes that Paris, Berlin, and Copenhagen subways cost about $250 million per kilometer, almost 90% less. Yet even those European subways are overpriced compared to Korea, where a kilometer of subway in Seoul costs $40 million/km (another Korean subway project cost $80 million/km). This is a difference of 50x between Seoul and New York for apparently comparable services.
     
    Considerations On Cost Disease

    China can afford to do these things not just because it's in their backyard rather than on the other side of the world, but because they can do public works at a fraction of the costs the US pays.

    Bearing in mind that neither freedom of navigation in the SCS, nor (as we know from the Iraq and Kosovo wars) the supposed "principle of enforcing the rule of law" is actually of any real concern for the US, for which noisy disputes over islands in the SCS are solely for the purpose of generating pretexts for confrontation of a rising rival power and preserving its past dominance of the region, is it worth spending that much just to try to gain a slightly better pretext? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to make a few provocative military forays there in the hope the Chinese might make the same mistake Japan made in the face of similar US hostility, and sink a US destroyer, or something like that?

    I would hope the US would actually try to avoid the kind of scenario you paintbin your last par. And while your argument on cost makes sense I am not sure that it adds up. Distance from the US doesn’t matter. In fact you provide the amswer which would be to have the Koreans do the job with Philippino labour. The islets wouldn’t need many oeople on them and indeed some might be tourist attractions. Fortfied ones could be defended with mines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    A lot depends on whether you are talking about nominally occupied and basically undefended islets intended just to provide legalist claims, or Chinese-style full blown and defensible military outposts.

    The former would be relatively cheap and would serve the purpose of providing improved pretexts for military confrontation, but little else. The Chinese have already made clear they are not interested in rulings by the US-dominated global legal establishment.

    The latter would, I suspect, involve unacceptable costs for the US, however much they try to outsource the work to local contractors. These are truly colossal public works projects. In the end, as with the Ukraine and Russia, control of the SCS will always matter infinitely more to China than it will to America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam J.
    The whole South China Sea business is stupid for the US to be involved in. One reason is stationary bases are becoming obsolete. A stationary base is a known target that can be dialed in and mercilessly pummeled. How much operational benefit do you believe the Chinese can get out of those Islands in a real war? Not much. Submarines can sink their supplies and they can be smashed by cruise missiles every 1/2 hour.

    Why should we be so concerned with the South China Sea? It's hardly any of our goods or ships that go through there. We don't have any commercial shipping to speak of.

    A far better path to take would be if they stop our ships going through there then they have abrogated sea treaties of long standing and we'll just not let them in our seas or Oceans. Like the Atlantic, the Pacific., the Indian, the Mediterranean, etc. This puts the onus on them. This plays to our strengths. Let them have the China Sea and we'll take the rest. A good word play on this is if they molest our ships constantly call them pirates and remind them of what happened to pirate shipping in the 17th century and why we made sea treaties in the first place.

    Yes but… China is not going to stop US ships going through the South China Sea in a way which would, as you put it, play to American strengths.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • And what good would it do the US to go to war with China?

    Those on the American right essentially make the same mistake as rightists everywhere. They imagine the #1 enemy to be an outsider, a foreign tribe, when their #1 enemy are domestic traitors who look and sound just like them. It is not ISIS/China/Iran/Russia that inflicts social ills like pluralism and equality on the American people.

    America is insulated by two oceans. Any kind of civil invasion (i.e. mass immigration) is mostly caused by Americans, Nice White Ladies and so on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred

    And what good would it do the US to go to war with China?
     
    Under present circumstances, none.

    The problem will come when the credit cycle ends and neither will have economic "growth" to help placate their populations.

    In the US the problem population will be unproductive urban populations who must be weaned off of social programs. In China the problem will be peasants who have migrated to cities for work but who are suddenly without jobs.

    I'm not saying it will be "good" to have war to reduce population, but there will definitely be pressure driving things in that direction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sam J.
    The whole South China Sea business is stupid for the US to be involved in. One reason is stationary bases are becoming obsolete. A stationary base is a known target that can be dialed in and mercilessly pummeled. How much operational benefit do you believe the Chinese can get out of those Islands in a real war? Not much. Submarines can sink their supplies and they can be smashed by cruise missiles every 1/2 hour.

    Why should we be so concerned with the South China Sea? It's hardly any of our goods or ships that go through there. We don't have any commercial shipping to speak of.

    A far better path to take would be if they stop our ships going through there then they have abrogated sea treaties of long standing and we'll just not let them in our seas or Oceans. Like the Atlantic, the Pacific., the Indian, the Mediterranean, etc. This puts the onus on them. This plays to our strengths. Let them have the China Sea and we'll take the rest. A good word play on this is if they molest our ships constantly call them pirates and remind them of what happened to pirate shipping in the 17th century and why we made sea treaties in the first place.

    There is zero chance of a war with China. Zero. It’s all just whiskey talk.

    The US would be sitting ducks anywhere near China and China needs the ocean lanes open for their lifeblood, trade.

    It’s that simple.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @mtn cur
    What do these people mean with their imitation Monroe Doctrine. Anyone would think that the South China Sea is the one right next to China and that the Crimean is next to Russia and whatever remains of the black sea fleet .We will have room to complain when we give back the northern half of Mexico, which we stole at gunpoint, or better yet, let's give back California and Texas and keep the rest.

    Sophomoric nonsense from mtn cur about ‘Mexico’, some points:

    It’s wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the US Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-White ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-Whites who created the US.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain). See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    Interestingly, these ‘undocumented immigrants’ still want desperately to live near the gringo. Why? They get richer that way.

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico? After all, it’s Mexico they all want to leave.

    It’s Euro-whites who they follow around.

    Mexican nationals already in the territories (all 75,000 of them!) were granted US citizenship, hence “Hispanics” were all considered White until Nixon created a separate category.

    USA paid Mexico $15 million for land that Mexico had ZERO interest in and that held 1% of Mexico’s population…

    Brown-skinned Mexicans have no legitimate ancestral claim on the southwest US. Their ancestors lived elsewhere.

    The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all Euro-white tussle between imperial powers.

    If these illegals make such valuable contributions, then why is Mexico refusing t0 take them back?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    If these illegals make such valuable contributions, then why is Mexico refusing t0 take them back?
     
    Source?
    , @mtn cur
    The failure of the USA to maintain its borders due to greedy fat cats points to the need to I D and penalize those who profited from hiring illegals. That said, liberals enjoy rewriting the history of the 19th century also, no credit to the fat cats who ruled Mexico and lost the northern half through incompetence and corruption.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Apparently, most posters here don’t understand the purpose of war. It is to borrow money into circulation, increase the debt, destroy property to borrow money into circulation to replace it, keep the masses focused on an external enemy instead of the one within. I rather doubt there will be a major world war in Trump’s presidency. The owners of this country would rather have a number of smaller wars in 3rd world countries. This serves the same purpose and there are fewer casualties and the military does not grow too large to control. If we engage in another total war, the military will become so large that a coup d’etat would be possible. There are officers in the U.S. and Chinese military that know exactly who pulls the strings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • First Russia, then Iran now China, The Leftists Globalists will not cease in beating the war drums. The deep state Globalists thrive on war like a maggot thrives on flesh. They would love to undermine President Trump by starting a military conflict. Had their puppet HRC won the USA would be one bomb and one order away from war with Russia.

    In the past the deep state has undermined President Clinton, Bush and Obama when they wanted. This is a crime and should be punished but none of the above had the balls to challenge. Trump does. If the deep state thinks they can overcome Trump and the US Army well then let’s have at it; the time has come to drain the swamp infested with deep state spooks and CIA MSM reporters answering to no one but themselves.

    Furthermore anyone advocating a war with Russia, Iran or China please do the USA a favor and jump in front of a train today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    Forgive me raising a question before reading all in the hope of maximising the chance of getting an informed answer. I have searched for "reef" and not found the answer yet so.....

    Why doesn't the US (or Japan, or the US and Japan jointly, to mention only some of the possibilities) lease an atoll or reef or three from the Philippines and/or other states and build its own island and facilities? The need to maintain the freedom of the seas in competition with China's aggressive claims is vastly exaggerated IMO but, anyway, such US installations could surely guarantee at least minimum South China Sea free passage. Even a 12 mile limit might be enough???
    I say "exaggerated" because nearly all seaborne trade with Japan or South Korea, including bulk iron ore shipments from Australia can readily use a not much longer route to the east of the Philippines, and virtually all other traffic would be to China itself. (I leave it to others to deal with the minutiae of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.).

    So is it really like Russia and Crimea? It doesn't really matter except for the principle of enforcing the rule of law? As it happens I think the obvious answer to the Crimean issue is for Ukraine and Russia to agree that Crimean residents can vote for independence but not to become part of Russia for X years (preferably 50 but maybe 25) when they can vote again. Unfortunately countries, especially big ones, don't seem very good at trading oranges for apples.

    Why doesn’t the US (or Japan, or the US and Japan jointly, to mention only some of the possibilities) lease an atoll or reef or three from the Philippines and/or other states and build its own island and facilities?

    One point that immediately occurs is cost. If as Steve Sailer recently guesstimated just the repairs to the spillway on one dam will cost “nine figures”, how much do you think it would cost the US to construct an entire island and military base facility in the ocean on the other side of the world? Especially if the garrison based there are going to expect US military standards of comfort and facilities?

    Bear in mind the context as outlined in the article referenced by Steve:

    we see similar effects in infrastructure. The first New York City subway opened around 1900. Various sources list lengths from 10 to 20 miles and costs from $30 million to $60 million dollars – I think my sources are capturing it at different stages of construction with different numbers of extensions. In any case, it suggests costs of between $1.5 million to $6 million dollars/mile = $1-4 million per kilometer. That looks like it’s about the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $100 million/kilometer today, though I’m very uncertain about that estimate. In contrast, Vox notes that a new New York subway line being opened this year costs about $2.2 billion per kilometer, suggesting a cost increase of twenty times – although I’m very uncertain about this estimate.

    Things become clearer when you compare them country-by-country. The same Vox article notes that Paris, Berlin, and Copenhagen subways cost about $250 million per kilometer, almost 90% less. Yet even those European subways are overpriced compared to Korea, where a kilometer of subway in Seoul costs $40 million/km (another Korean subway project cost $80 million/km). This is a difference of 50x between Seoul and New York for apparently comparable services.

    Considerations On Cost Disease

    China can afford to do these things not just because it’s in their backyard rather than on the other side of the world, but because they can do public works at a fraction of the costs the US pays.

    Bearing in mind that neither freedom of navigation in the SCS, nor (as we know from the Iraq and Kosovo wars) the supposed “principle of enforcing the rule of law” is actually of any real concern for the US, for which noisy disputes over islands in the SCS are solely for the purpose of generating pretexts for confrontation of a rising rival power and preserving its past dominance of the region, is it worth spending that much just to try to gain a slightly better pretext? Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to make a few provocative military forays there in the hope the Chinese might make the same mistake Japan made in the face of similar US hostility, and sink a US destroyer, or something like that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I would hope the US would actually try to avoid the kind of scenario you paintbin your last par. And while your argument on cost makes sense I am not sure that it adds up. Distance from the US doesn't matter. In fact you provide the amswer which would be to have the Koreans do the job with Philippino labour. The islets wouldn't need many oeople on them and indeed some might be tourist attractions. Fortfied ones could be defended with mines.
    , @Joe Wong
    A US war plane has been taken down and A US war equipment has been confiscated, so what is the American waiting for? Are you saying the American is all like Donald Trump, big mouth loose cannons?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Simon in London
    I think a US-China naval war in the South China Sea is definitely possible, especially if both parties believe they can prevent it escalating into a nuclear holocaust. Looking at the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the UK-Argentine Falklands War provides hints at how such a conflict might be 'quarantined', with both sides restricting the area of operations (South China Sea, no attacks on enemy mainland) and weaponry (no nukes). A classic inter-state 'limited war' of the kind that was standard 1815-1914.

    What would be the result of such a clash? My guess would be that China would 'lose', in the sense of losing control of many or all of its bases in the South China Sea, but also 'win' in the sense of inflicting heavy losses on the USA, and the result would be something like the Yom Kippur War in which both sides might claim victory. This 'peace with honour' result is always the best you can hope for in inter-state war. Especially if China got to retain some territory, she could claim to have successfully repelled attack by a stronger enemy, and everyone would be happy (except possibly the relatives of the dead).

    Conversely, an overwhelming victory for either side could be very bad, destabilising the loser. A defeated Chinese leadership would be discredited and might be overthrown. There might even be a disastrous State Collapse of the type William S Lind warns against, turning east Asia into the Middle East. Defeated but intact China would be a less severe result - it would nurse its wounds and plot revenge, but have limited ability to gain revenge in the near term. The world would darken but this might be recoverable.

    A defeated US leadership would likely also be overthrown (impeached/forced resignation) but this would not likely result in US State collapse. A likelier result would be that the US under new leadership, seeing itself as still militarily stronger, would refuse peace and seek a rematch/revenge on more favourable terms, resulting in a long drawn out war with the possibility of nuclear escalation and global holocaust (especially if Russia were drawn in on the US side).

    My guess would be that China would ‘lose’, in the sense of losing control of many or all of its bases in the South China Sea, but also ‘win’ in the sense of inflicting heavy losses on the USA, and the result would be something like the Yom Kippur War in which both sides might claim victory. This ‘peace with honour’ result is always the best you can hope for in inter-state war.

    This is a possibility, but by no means guaranteed. Alternatively, it might turn out that China can successfully exclude US naval forces from operating in and around the SCS. Too much depends on the performance of high tech systems that are essentially untested in a major war, and on the attitudes of other countries such as Russia, India and Japan, as well as on the political power available to the US president in terms of the attitude of the American people to the war. A US war against China in response to a (real or fabricated) “Pearl Harbor” type event would be a very different thing from one seen as another interventionist adventure like Iraq. What would be the US’s response to the sinking, or even seriously damaging, of a carrier in a war that will not necessarily be seen as justified? What chance is there that the media and political figures in the US left establishment will unite behind a Trump war? Absent a “Pearl Harbor” type event: zero, I would have thought (other than a few neocon types who want the particular war in question because of their own external loyalties).

    And is it conceivable that Russia, after the US interference in Ukraine, would want to see a militarily triumphant US free to turn its attention to Russia again, let alone a China in political chaos after a defeat? They’d have to be pretty naïve, and that doesn’t appear to be a particularly salient feature of Russian leadership.

    The attitude behind Bannon’s words, that a war now to halt the rise of a rival is in the US’s interests because a win can still be guaranteed, is surely a decade or so out of date. A win might well be possible, but so is a defeat.

    But the attitude you exemplify here – that a “limited war” is possible – is precisely the one that led the Japanese to disaster in WW2. If it is shared by the US leadership then we are in real danger. It’s a highly dangerous attitude – suppose that instead of meekly accepting defeat in a limited naval war the Chinese, like the US in 1941, decide to wage a war to the death by all means available? Who has the manufacturing capacity to sustain a long war in which manufacture and replacement of military material on WW2-style scales becomes vital, the US or China? Who can better tolerate heavy losses of life? More to the point, perhaps, what chance is there that such a war could avoid escalation to nuclear weapons use?

    The possibility of a war between the US and China is a serious one, because there is a real power rivalry at its root, but I don’t see Trump as wanting it. His attitude towards the Chinese is certainly hostile, but he’s not a militarist nor someone like the Clintons and Bushes who see war as a useful tool of policy. More likely he sees military bluster as merely a prelude to a better deal. But that’s also a dangerous approach.

    Far better would be a US recognition that it can no longer, without unacceptable risks and costs, hold on to the power it gained many decades ago as a result of China’s weakness, and that it should pull its nose out of what by any reasonable judgement is China’s legitimate core security sphere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As soon as China stashes away a few hundred more tons of gold and amputates the dollar by cashing in their trillions in US Treasury bonds, there might not be another president after Trump, only oligarchs and FEMA camps with NATO troops keeping civil order. *** http://rebbe_rocky.tripod.com/Deciphering_Trump.htm *** link to “Who are the real progressives, and who are not real progressives”? –bruce leigh

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carlton Meyer
    Americans do not understand that citizens of Taiwan and South Korea see China as more an ally than the USA. China is their major trading partner and culturally similar.

    Here is a clear explanation of the island conflict from my blog:

    Nov 30, 2013 - Diaoyu/Senkaku Warmongering.

    I didn't understand the conflict over a few tiny, uninhabited islands near Taiwan. Our war machine aligned with our corporate media to publish hundreds of stories over the past two years about aggressive Chinese claims to these Japanese islands. Then I read this letter in the "Economist" last February:

    SIR – Your leader about the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands presented China as the aggressor in the East China Sea and Japan as the victim (“Dangerous shoals”, January 19th). A different story can be told if you go further back. China has claimed the islands for centuries and always treated Japan’s annexation of them in 1895 as illegal.

    The Potsdam Declaration of 1945, which set out the Allied Powers’ terms for Japan’s surrender, deprived Japan of all its overseas territories, including the islands. But the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, signed by Japan, actually broke those conditions by restoring the islands to Japanese control (but leaving open the issue of sovereignty).

    Moreover, the Chinese government, by then controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, was excluded from the conference that produced the treaty. For both those reasons the Chinese government regards the handing back of the islands to Japanese control as illegitimate.

    Until 2010 the two governments left the settlement of their claims undefined. This was the agreement that came out of the diplomatic recognition and friendship talks between the government of Japan and Zhou Enlai in 1972 and Deng Xiaoping in 1978. Deng famously suggested that contentious issues like Senkaku should be “left to the wiser heads of later generations”. In practice, Japan accepted the islands’ limbo state, exercising only “practical control” by shooing away non-Japanese fishing boats.

    The current dispute began in 2010 when the Japanese arrested a Chinese fishing boat in defiance of an agreement not to apply domestic laws to trespassing fishermen and proposed to put the captain on trial. This provoked an unexpectedly furious Chinese reaction, which stiffened the Japanese government’s determination not to appear weak in its dealings with China.

    China’s “aggression” towards Japan has to be understood in this context. In a civilised world both sides would bring the case to the International Court of Justice.

    Professor Robert Wade
    Department of international development
    London School of Economics

    According to the Potsdam Accords, Okinawa should not have been given back to Japan in 1972, since the Japanese empire invaded that island chain in 1872. Note that Taiwan was also a Japanese colony, and was freed after World War II. Taiwan also claims these islands near its coast, and a long way from mainland Japan.

    If you read more about this issue, it remained in limbo until 2010 when Japan began to exert sovereignty over these distant islands, challenging Taiwanese and Chinese fisherman in the area and claiming the airspace. China refused to accept this illegal and provocative behavior, and countered this squatter's rights move by declaring the air space as well. This only means that China (like Japan) demands permission to fly through this zone (far from Japan) and reserves the right to intercept non-complying aircraft and shoot down hostile intruders.

    This is an old, petty squabble between Japan and our World War II ally China. It is not a sign of an aggressive Chinese military and no excuse to maintain wartime levels of spending that are helping bankrupt our nation. It explains why the Pentagon immediately flew two B-52 bombers through the zone and publicly backed Japan's claim, while demonstrating its control over our corporate media, which failed to report these facts.

    I suggest an obvious compromise. Japan should offer to transfer these big rocks to Taiwan if China drops its claim. Taiwan is the nearest nation, and this should have happened when it became independent after World War II. China's reaction would be interesting, but this would diffuse the issue and improve relations with Taiwan.

    I still haven’t read enough since writing #12 but am glad to read in your comment that you do see the merit of sidestepping what is superficially the main confrontation and trading, so to speak, apples, oranges and beans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Forgive me raising a question before reading all in the hope of maximising the chance of getting an informed answer. I have searched for “reef” and not found the answer yet so…..

    Why doesn’t the US (or Japan, or the US and Japan jointly, to mention only some of the possibilities) lease an atoll or reef or three from the Philippines and/or other states and build its own island and facilities? The need to maintain the freedom of the seas in competition with China’s aggressive claims is vastly exaggerated IMO but, anyway, such US installations could surely guarantee at least minimum South China Sea free passage. Even a 12 mile limit might be enough???
    I say “exaggerated” because nearly all seaborne trade with Japan or South Korea, including bulk iron ore shipments from Australia can readily use a not much longer route to the east of the Philippines, and virtually all other traffic would be to China itself. (I leave it to others to deal with the minutiae of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.).

    So is it really like Russia and Crimea? It doesn’t really matter except for the principle of enforcing the rule of law? As it happens I think the obvious answer to the Crimean issue is for Ukraine and Russia to agree that Crimean residents can vote for independence but not to become part of Russia for X years (preferably 50 but maybe 25) when they can vote again. Unfortunately countries, especially big ones, don’t seem very good at trading oranges for apples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Why doesn’t the US (or Japan, or the US and Japan jointly, to mention only some of the possibilities) lease an atoll or reef or three from the Philippines and/or other states and build its own island and facilities?
     
    One point that immediately occurs is cost. If as Steve Sailer recently guesstimated just the repairs to the spillway on one dam will cost "nine figures", how much do you think it would cost the US to construct an entire island and military base facility in the ocean on the other side of the world? Especially if the garrison based there are going to expect US military standards of comfort and facilities?

    Bear in mind the context as outlined in the article referenced by Steve:

    we see similar effects in infrastructure. The first New York City subway opened around 1900. Various sources list lengths from 10 to 20 miles and costs from $30 million to $60 million dollars – I think my sources are capturing it at different stages of construction with different numbers of extensions. In any case, it suggests costs of between $1.5 million to $6 million dollars/mile = $1-4 million per kilometer. That looks like it’s about the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $100 million/kilometer today, though I’m very uncertain about that estimate. In contrast, Vox notes that a new New York subway line being opened this year costs about $2.2 billion per kilometer, suggesting a cost increase of twenty times – although I’m very uncertain about this estimate.

    Things become clearer when you compare them country-by-country. The same Vox article notes that Paris, Berlin, and Copenhagen subways cost about $250 million per kilometer, almost 90% less. Yet even those European subways are overpriced compared to Korea, where a kilometer of subway in Seoul costs $40 million/km (another Korean subway project cost $80 million/km). This is a difference of 50x between Seoul and New York for apparently comparable services.
     
    Considerations On Cost Disease

    China can afford to do these things not just because it's in their backyard rather than on the other side of the world, but because they can do public works at a fraction of the costs the US pays.

    Bearing in mind that neither freedom of navigation in the SCS, nor (as we know from the Iraq and Kosovo wars) the supposed "principle of enforcing the rule of law" is actually of any real concern for the US, for which noisy disputes over islands in the SCS are solely for the purpose of generating pretexts for confrontation of a rising rival power and preserving its past dominance of the region, is it worth spending that much just to try to gain a slightly better pretext? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to make a few provocative military forays there in the hope the Chinese might make the same mistake Japan made in the face of similar US hostility, and sink a US destroyer, or something like that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The whole South China Sea business is stupid for the US to be involved in. One reason is stationary bases are becoming obsolete. A stationary base is a known target that can be dialed in and mercilessly pummeled. How much operational benefit do you believe the Chinese can get out of those Islands in a real war? Not much. Submarines can sink their supplies and they can be smashed by cruise missiles every 1/2 hour.

    Why should we be so concerned with the South China Sea? It’s hardly any of our goods or ships that go through there. We don’t have any commercial shipping to speak of.

    A far better path to take would be if they stop our ships going through there then they have abrogated sea treaties of long standing and we’ll just not let them in our seas or Oceans. Like the Atlantic, the Pacific., the Indian, the Mediterranean, etc. This puts the onus on them. This plays to our strengths. Let them have the China Sea and we’ll take the rest. A good word play on this is if they molest our ships constantly call them pirates and remind them of what happened to pirate shipping in the 17th century and why we made sea treaties in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    There is zero chance of a war with China. Zero. It's all just whiskey talk.

    The US would be sitting ducks anywhere near China and China needs the ocean lanes open for their lifeblood, trade.

    It's that simple.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Yes but... China is not going to stop US ships going through the South China Sea in a way which would, as you put it, play to American strengths.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Bannon: “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years, aren’t we? There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face — and you understand how important face is — and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

    This is a good indicator that it might happen.

    Also, there’s the classic setup on the Chinese side of a growing Nationalist power with Imperial grievances, an unstable economy and an insecure leadership without Democratic legitimacy.
    They may also recall how a rising Japan delivered a stinging naval defeat to Imperial Russia in 1905 to assert their Asian dominance. If the US experiences a similar big naval defeat (possible) then Trump would need to decide if he is ready for nuclear war.

    Any sane answer would have to be no, but he doesn’t like to be a “loser” and the Deep State is longing for a National Emergency to launch their own dictatorship in the US, so the dynamic might be there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Abandon Taiwan and South Korea please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Americans do not understand that citizens of Taiwan and South Korea see China as more an ally than the USA. China is their major trading partner and culturally similar.

    Here is a clear explanation of the island conflict from my blog:

    Nov 30, 2013 – Diaoyu/Senkaku Warmongering.

    I didn’t understand the conflict over a few tiny, uninhabited islands near Taiwan. Our war machine aligned with our corporate media to publish hundreds of stories over the past two years about aggressive Chinese claims to these Japanese islands. Then I read this letter in the “Economist” last February:

    SIR – Your leader about the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands presented China as the aggressor in the East China Sea and Japan as the victim (“Dangerous shoals”, January 19th). A different story can be told if you go further back. China has claimed the islands for centuries and always treated Japan’s annexation of them in 1895 as illegal.

    The Potsdam Declaration of 1945, which set out the Allied Powers’ terms for Japan’s surrender, deprived Japan of all its overseas territories, including the islands. But the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, signed by Japan, actually broke those conditions by restoring the islands to Japanese control (but leaving open the issue of sovereignty).

    Moreover, the Chinese government, by then controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, was excluded from the conference that produced the treaty. For both those reasons the Chinese government regards the handing back of the islands to Japanese control as illegitimate.

    Until 2010 the two governments left the settlement of their claims undefined. This was the agreement that came out of the diplomatic recognition and friendship talks between the government of Japan and Zhou Enlai in 1972 and Deng Xiaoping in 1978. Deng famously suggested that contentious issues like Senkaku should be “left to the wiser heads of later generations”. In practice, Japan accepted the islands’ limbo state, exercising only “practical control” by shooing away non-Japanese fishing boats.

    The current dispute began in 2010 when the Japanese arrested a Chinese fishing boat in defiance of an agreement not to apply domestic laws to trespassing fishermen and proposed to put the captain on trial. This provoked an unexpectedly furious Chinese reaction, which stiffened the Japanese government’s determination not to appear weak in its dealings with China.

    China’s “aggression” towards Japan has to be understood in this context. In a civilised world both sides would bring the case to the International Court of Justice.

    Professor Robert Wade
    Department of international development
    London School of Economics

    According to the Potsdam Accords, Okinawa should not have been given back to Japan in 1972, since the Japanese empire invaded that island chain in 1872. Note that Taiwan was also a Japanese colony, and was freed after World War II. Taiwan also claims these islands near its coast, and a long way from mainland Japan.

    If you read more about this issue, it remained in limbo until 2010 when Japan began to exert sovereignty over these distant islands, challenging Taiwanese and Chinese fisherman in the area and claiming the airspace. China refused to accept this illegal and provocative behavior, and countered this squatter’s rights move by declaring the air space as well. This only means that China (like Japan) demands permission to fly through this zone (far from Japan) and reserves the right to intercept non-complying aircraft and shoot down hostile intruders.

    This is an old, petty squabble between Japan and our World War II ally China. It is not a sign of an aggressive Chinese military and no excuse to maintain wartime levels of spending that are helping bankrupt our nation. It explains why the Pentagon immediately flew two B-52 bombers through the zone and publicly backed Japan’s claim, while demonstrating its control over our corporate media, which failed to report these facts.

    I suggest an obvious compromise. Japan should offer to transfer these big rocks to Taiwan if China drops its claim. Taiwan is the nearest nation, and this should have happened when it became independent after World War II. China’s reaction would be interesting, but this would diffuse the issue and improve relations with Taiwan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I still haven't read enough since writing #12 but am glad to read in your comment that you do see the merit of sidestepping what is superficially the main confrontation and trading, so to speak, apples, oranges and beans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @KA
    US has to get Pakistan out of Chinese orbit. India wants to play along seeing a match between China and US beneficial to his interest .But what about other countries? S Korea and Japan and Taiwan will be there for US . I can see a possibility that Taiwan even allowing American base and nukes down the line if push comes to shove . Rest of the Asian countries will stay idle or go over to China. But there is huge Chinese diaspora in many countries -wealthy and nationalistic .Will it become a political issue soon? Anti Chinese attitude will affect American educational system It will also give rise to new anxiety within many of the these countries .

    there is a red line for the chinese govt regarding taiwan. not recognizing the 1 china policy = zero contact between the 2 countries. it is why trump had to back off. american base or nuke in taiwan? it won’t be the cuban missile crisis, I think it would instantly be all out war. to the ccp, that is akin to an invasion as it considers taiwan a province.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @justcommenting
    The scary thing is to what extent both governments are influenced by Zionist elements.

    Clearly a US China war would not be in the interest of either country but it just might be in the interest of the Zionists who probably have more say in the matter than anyone.

    Both sides have built a lot of hardware that needs exercised and made obsolete so that both countries have to get back to the banks for some more loans for some more equipment.

    “The scary thing is to what extent both governments are influenced by Zionist elements.”

    LMAO the tribe now runs China – moron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Simon in London
    I think a US-China naval war in the South China Sea is definitely possible, especially if both parties believe they can prevent it escalating into a nuclear holocaust. Looking at the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the UK-Argentine Falklands War provides hints at how such a conflict might be 'quarantined', with both sides restricting the area of operations (South China Sea, no attacks on enemy mainland) and weaponry (no nukes). A classic inter-state 'limited war' of the kind that was standard 1815-1914.

    What would be the result of such a clash? My guess would be that China would 'lose', in the sense of losing control of many or all of its bases in the South China Sea, but also 'win' in the sense of inflicting heavy losses on the USA, and the result would be something like the Yom Kippur War in which both sides might claim victory. This 'peace with honour' result is always the best you can hope for in inter-state war. Especially if China got to retain some territory, she could claim to have successfully repelled attack by a stronger enemy, and everyone would be happy (except possibly the relatives of the dead).

    Conversely, an overwhelming victory for either side could be very bad, destabilising the loser. A defeated Chinese leadership would be discredited and might be overthrown. There might even be a disastrous State Collapse of the type William S Lind warns against, turning east Asia into the Middle East. Defeated but intact China would be a less severe result - it would nurse its wounds and plot revenge, but have limited ability to gain revenge in the near term. The world would darken but this might be recoverable.

    A defeated US leadership would likely also be overthrown (impeached/forced resignation) but this would not likely result in US State collapse. A likelier result would be that the US under new leadership, seeing itself as still militarily stronger, would refuse peace and seek a rematch/revenge on more favourable terms, resulting in a long drawn out war with the possibility of nuclear escalation and global holocaust (especially if Russia were drawn in on the US side).

    US has to get Pakistan out of Chinese orbit. India wants to play along seeing a match between China and US beneficial to his interest .But what about other countries? S Korea and Japan and Taiwan will be there for US . I can see a possibility that Taiwan even allowing American base and nukes down the line if push comes to shove . Rest of the Asian countries will stay idle or go over to China. But there is huge Chinese diaspora in many countries -wealthy and nationalistic .Will it become a political issue soon? Anti Chinese attitude will affect American educational system It will also give rise to new anxiety within many of the these countries .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    there is a red line for the chinese govt regarding taiwan. not recognizing the 1 china policy = zero contact between the 2 countries. it is why trump had to back off. american base or nuke in taiwan? it won't be the cuban missile crisis, I think it would instantly be all out war. to the ccp, that is akin to an invasion as it considers taiwan a province.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Yes, the US is poking its nose in China’s back yard, and the US not only can it must because it is the global superpower and there can only be one. Read Mearsheimer to understand why not interfering in every part of the world is a hardly an option. If the US is so worried about annoying China now that China is left alone, in a generation or two China will be number one and then they (in self defence) will be will interfering in the US’s backyard. This is the time to pick a argument, and exert military pressure on China with a economy-overheating arms race.

    There is going to be war, a cold war, whereby the US will prevail as against Russia. One county has the world’s most powerful economy / innovative technology and thus cannot be defeated–yet. Double down on China and stop them achieving world domination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    China surpassing the USA in the next decade not in a generation or two is a matter of fact, China not only will surpass the USA in GDP, it will surpass the USA in full spectrum. USA's decline is USA's own doing or USA's own incompetence by spending all the money on losing wars.

    American education is third rated and broken, they rely on the immigrants to do the science and technology works. Americans cannot do maths and cannot read manuals that is a known norm. In addition the skyrocketing USA national debt and excessive military spending are handcuffing the USA spending on R&D like the defunct USSR. The USA is walking the same path as the dying days of the Roman Empire and will soon imploded like the USSR.
    , @Randal

    Yes, the US is poking its nose in China’s back yard, and the US not only can it must because it is the global superpower and there can only be one.
     
    Refreshing as it always is to get to the brute force reality that underlies all the American bullshit about noble causes, you are in serious danger of self-fulfilling prophecy here. And, in truth, it says more about the basic nature of American interaction with the world than about China's.

    China has an approach to the world that is different from America's. For all its flaws, it is not a crusading, universalist one like Soviet communism was and US democratism is. There's every reason to suppose that a globally dominant China will not be as aggressively interfering as the US has been, so long as reasonable deterrent strength is maintained.

    As for "This is the time to pick a[n] argument", you appear to be rather overly risk-tolerant to those who prefer not to see nuclear powers engaging in military confrontations that risk open war. We survived the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, but it was for sure a very close run thing at times and there's a good case to be made that only good fortune preserved us. I'm not sure who is worse - you for thinking that you can safely have a "Cold War" with China, or Karlin and Bannon for thinking RAND-style analysis is a safe basis from which to conclude that a limited war can safely be fought and won now and for some confidently predicted window into the near future. But the combination of your thinking and theirs , replicated throughout the US foreign policy elite, might be the end of us all, if a US President falls for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The scary thing is to what extent both governments are influenced by Zionist elements.

    Clearly a US China war would not be in the interest of either country but it just might be in the interest of the Zionists who probably have more say in the matter than anyone.

    Both sides have built a lot of hardware that needs exercised and made obsolete so that both countries have to get back to the banks for some more loans for some more equipment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
    "The scary thing is to what extent both governments are influenced by Zionist elements."

    LMAO the tribe now runs China - moron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Steel T Post
    If we got in a nuclear war and lost Berkley and the Ninth Circuit, then that would be tragic.

    ahah, with that attitude, lets press the big red button :P

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • What do these people mean with their imitation Monroe Doctrine. Anyone would think that the South China Sea is the one right next to China and that the Crimean is next to Russia and whatever remains of the black sea fleet .We will have room to complain when we give back the northern half of Mexico, which we stole at gunpoint, or better yet, let’s give back California and Texas and keep the rest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Sophomoric nonsense from mtn cur about 'Mexico', some points:

    It's wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the US Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-White ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-Whites who created the US.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain). See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    Interestingly, these ‘undocumented immigrants’ still want desperately to live near the gringo. Why? They get richer that way.

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico? After all, it's Mexico they all want to leave.

    It's Euro-whites who they follow around.

    Mexican nationals already in the territories (all 75,000 of them!) were granted US citizenship, hence “Hispanics” were all considered White until Nixon created a separate category.

    USA paid Mexico $15 million for land that Mexico had ZERO interest in and that held 1% of Mexico’s population…

    Brown-skinned Mexicans have no legitimate ancestral claim on the southwest US. Their ancestors lived elsewhere.

    The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all Euro-white tussle between imperial powers.

    If these illegals make such valuable contributions, then why is Mexico refusing t0 take them back?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If we got in a nuclear war and lost Berkley and the Ninth Circuit, then that would be tragic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    ahah, with that attitude, lets press the big red button :P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I think a US-China naval war in the South China Sea is definitely possible, especially if both parties believe they can prevent it escalating into a nuclear holocaust. Looking at the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the UK-Argentine Falklands War provides hints at how such a conflict might be ‘quarantined’, with both sides restricting the area of operations (South China Sea, no attacks on enemy mainland) and weaponry (no nukes). A classic inter-state ‘limited war’ of the kind that was standard 1815-1914.

    What would be the result of such a clash? My guess would be that China would ‘lose’, in the sense of losing control of many or all of its bases in the South China Sea, but also ‘win’ in the sense of inflicting heavy losses on the USA, and the result would be something like the Yom Kippur War in which both sides might claim victory. This ‘peace with honour’ result is always the best you can hope for in inter-state war. Especially if China got to retain some territory, she could claim to have successfully repelled attack by a stronger enemy, and everyone would be happy (except possibly the relatives of the dead).

    Conversely, an overwhelming victory for either side could be very bad, destabilising the loser. A defeated Chinese leadership would be discredited and might be overthrown. There might even be a disastrous State Collapse of the type William S Lind warns against, turning east Asia into the Middle East. Defeated but intact China would be a less severe result – it would nurse its wounds and plot revenge, but have limited ability to gain revenge in the near term. The world would darken but this might be recoverable.

    A defeated US leadership would likely also be overthrown (impeached/forced resignation) but this would not likely result in US State collapse. A likelier result would be that the US under new leadership, seeing itself as still militarily stronger, would refuse peace and seek a rematch/revenge on more favourable terms, resulting in a long drawn out war with the possibility of nuclear escalation and global holocaust (especially if Russia were drawn in on the US side).

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    US has to get Pakistan out of Chinese orbit. India wants to play along seeing a match between China and US beneficial to his interest .But what about other countries? S Korea and Japan and Taiwan will be there for US . I can see a possibility that Taiwan even allowing American base and nukes down the line if push comes to shove . Rest of the Asian countries will stay idle or go over to China. But there is huge Chinese diaspora in many countries -wealthy and nationalistic .Will it become a political issue soon? Anti Chinese attitude will affect American educational system It will also give rise to new anxiety within many of the these countries .
    , @Randal

    My guess would be that China would ‘lose’, in the sense of losing control of many or all of its bases in the South China Sea, but also ‘win’ in the sense of inflicting heavy losses on the USA, and the result would be something like the Yom Kippur War in which both sides might claim victory. This ‘peace with honour’ result is always the best you can hope for in inter-state war.
     
    This is a possibility, but by no means guaranteed. Alternatively, it might turn out that China can successfully exclude US naval forces from operating in and around the SCS. Too much depends on the performance of high tech systems that are essentially untested in a major war, and on the attitudes of other countries such as Russia, India and Japan, as well as on the political power available to the US president in terms of the attitude of the American people to the war. A US war against China in response to a (real or fabricated) "Pearl Harbor" type event would be a very different thing from one seen as another interventionist adventure like Iraq. What would be the US's response to the sinking, or even seriously damaging, of a carrier in a war that will not necessarily be seen as justified? What chance is there that the media and political figures in the US left establishment will unite behind a Trump war? Absent a "Pearl Harbor" type event: zero, I would have thought (other than a few neocon types who want the particular war in question because of their own external loyalties).

    And is it conceivable that Russia, after the US interference in Ukraine, would want to see a militarily triumphant US free to turn its attention to Russia again, let alone a China in political chaos after a defeat? They'd have to be pretty naïve, and that doesn't appear to be a particularly salient feature of Russian leadership.

    The attitude behind Bannon's words, that a war now to halt the rise of a rival is in the US's interests because a win can still be guaranteed, is surely a decade or so out of date. A win might well be possible, but so is a defeat.

    But the attitude you exemplify here - that a "limited war" is possible - is precisely the one that led the Japanese to disaster in WW2. If it is shared by the US leadership then we are in real danger. It's a highly dangerous attitude - suppose that instead of meekly accepting defeat in a limited naval war the Chinese, like the US in 1941, decide to wage a war to the death by all means available? Who has the manufacturing capacity to sustain a long war in which manufacture and replacement of military material on WW2-style scales becomes vital, the US or China? Who can better tolerate heavy losses of life? More to the point, perhaps, what chance is there that such a war could avoid escalation to nuclear weapons use?

    The possibility of a war between the US and China is a serious one, because there is a real power rivalry at its root, but I don't see Trump as wanting it. His attitude towards the Chinese is certainly hostile, but he's not a militarist nor someone like the Clintons and Bushes who see war as a useful tool of policy. More likely he sees military bluster as merely a prelude to a better deal. But that's also a dangerous approach.

    Far better would be a US recognition that it can no longer, without unacceptable risks and costs, hold on to the power it gained many decades ago as a result of China's weakness, and that it should pull its nose out of what by any reasonable judgement is China's legitimate core security sphere.
    , @Joe Wong
    Your comment is the typical brain washed from cradle to grave old days British Empire subjects' uneducated delusional view based on the fallacy that only the White can invent and only the White can succeed.

    If it is a limited war, the American Navy and Air Force will be wiped out within 72 hours as well as all the military bases in Japan and SK by China's massive missiles bombardments from air, warships, submarines and land. The USA military's single point failure weapons will all cease to work due to their GPS and internet communications being hacked by Chinese Space Strategy Corp. Besides most of the American weapons rely on parts from other nations, the EU will use this opportunity to get the American off their backs by withholding their parts and let the American being defected by the Chinese like the Argentinian in the Falklands War due to running out foreign supplied parts and weapons.

    In the last 75 years the amount of wars, atrocities and chaos created by the American in the SE Asia make them the most hated people and nation in the SE Asia, everybody can't wait to help China to put an end to the presence of this do no good psychopath in the SE Asia.

    American initiated aggression war will allow the CCP to rally the Chinese people around it like it did in the war against the Japanese, Korean War and Vietnam War by reminding the Chinese the hundred years of humiliation and suffering as well as the dark age of Unequal Treaties caused by the foreign devil invasions.

    On the other hand, a defeated USA will render Washington totally discredited and weakened that it has no mean to put down the boiling over separatism that has been simmering underneath decades in the USA, the USA will be broken into 7 pieces as projected in some Russian scientists' hypothesis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Good piece, but a little behind on China’s weapons (‘U.S. naval and air forces are far more advanced and lethal than their Chinese equivalents’) and its legitimate claims to those islands and reefs.

    China’s defensive arsenal is (much) more advanced than their American counterparts, from its Type 052D destroyers that are superior to our Arleigh Burke class, to its DF-21D and -41D ASBMs, its Scan Eagle drones, invisible subs, and, as you conceded, an overwhelming geographical advantage.

    China’s claims to the islands are pretty well established. State Dept Chief of Spatial and Boundary Analysis, Daniel Dzurek recounting how Japan returned the South China Sea to China after WWII in treaties that adhered to Japan’s surrender agreement:

    “Because the Allies, in particular the United Kingdom and the United States, could not agree on which government represented China, no Chinese delegation participated in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Conference. Therefore the Republic of China (Taiwan) negotiated a separate peace treaty with Japan, signed on 28 April 1952. Article 2 of the text included a reference to the San Francisco treaty:

    “It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed in the city of San Francisco in the United States of American on September 8 1951, Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands””

    Republic of China has argued that the explicit reference to the Spratly and Paracel islands in the text of this bilateral treaty implies Japanese recognition of Chinese sovereignty. Samuels and Lu have observed that, unlike the 1951 treaty, the Sino-Japanese text mentions the Spratly and Paracel islands in the same sentence as Taiwan and the Pescadores islands. The latter are generally recognized as Chinese territories. Moreover, according to the negotiating record Japan insisted that the renunciation article deal only with Chinese territory. This shows that the ROC and Japan viewed the islands of Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Spratlys, and tha Paracels as having a similar status – that is, belonging to China”.

    (https://books.google.co.th/books?id=o5P4U4UlucMC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Daniel+Dzurek+“Because+the+Allies,+in+particular+the+United+Kingdom+and+the+United+States,+could+not+agree&source=bl&ots=46YA_EwQss&sig=pBcNObrlzocctryY0wJeZFuDtn0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc6abSvqDPAhUHs48KHXImDvUQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Daniel%20Dzurek%20“Because%20the%20Allies%2C%20in%20particular%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20and%20the%20United%20States%2C%20could%20not%20agree&f=false

    Read More
    • Replies: @What
    Your information is wrong. Explain how the Type-052 is superior to the Arleigh Burke class?

    Scan Eagle is an American drone.

    Chinese subs are far from "invisible" and more than a generation behind.

    The ASBMs aren't advanced. Nobody else employs conventional ballistic missiles for fear of starting a nuclear war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ‘Trump loves drama’, ‘Trump routinely act on impulse’. Jeez. What with endless speculations, innuendo, and amateur pop-psychology? Reading tea leaves. This is not political analysis, this is a fantasy fiction…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.