cortez"chinas navy has overtaken the uks in capability but more importantly is GROWING at such a pace that it may overtake the USs in 10-20 years." HAHAHA where did you get that from the reason china hasnt invades tawain is because they dont have enough transport ships to get enough troops over and also because the US ships stationed in Japan could take on their whole Navy. I am pretty sure tawain has better ships than china. Also china doesnt have any aircraft carriers the uk does. only the us the uk can project globally not the us and china or russia the us and the uk. thats why there # 1 and # 2.
Royal Navy ship damage probe.
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
cortez said:
:lol: Good one cortez.
I think it's a cool little ship. How many ships are there over 200 years old floating about? Not many I would imagine. Nice piece of history.
Re: RE: Royal Navy ship damage probe.
not for long
its the dynamic of an ascending power, organized intelligent and with unlimited man power
it is inevitable that the current hegemony wiil fall it always does-- i dont make the rules
the uk --by the admission of many of the posters here cannot even prevent its fellow eu members from ripping it off
its influence is waning
chineese generals have already suggested that if the us navy were to attempt to advance against any move they made for taiwan they would nuke them in the water
a similar threat they made to the us during the vietnam war -- ie if the us were to use nuclear weopns on north vietnam -- china would retaliate--- vietnam marked the limit of the westward expansion of the anglosaxons----or the west or whatever else you may want to call it--thanks in part to china.
when the treaty for the repatriation of hong kong was signed the british had no idea that in 1997 they would be dealing with a china that could defend itself----had china not reached that point by 1997 the british would have held a referendum asking whether the people of hong kong wished to remain under british rule--they would said yes no doubt-- and britain would then have maintained control of hong kong using a moral argument to overide the terms of the repatriation agreement
when the uk handed hong kong back they did so because they had to they were no match for china --navy or not ---
to an objective observer that transfer was a sign of weakness on the part of the british ---if we use the logic of realpolitc
the zero possiblity of the us and uk preventing the chineese annexation or conquest of tibet is another example
lets distinguish what is likely to happen from what we may want to happen---- believe me i would personally prefer a status quo if the alternative is another blood bath-- but you and i dont make the rules that govern the ascension and decline of nation states
your hahahing suggests to me that you personalize these arguments-- your sense of personal self esteem seem to be ridiculously dependant on this imperial fantasy--- but that too is a symptom of decline................
shortmanx5 said:
not for long
its the dynamic of an ascending power, organized intelligent and with unlimited man power
it is inevitable that the current hegemony wiil fall it always does-- i dont make the rules
the uk --by the admission of many of the posters here cannot even prevent its fellow eu members from ripping it off
its influence is waning
chineese generals have already suggested that if the us navy were to attempt to advance against any move they made for taiwan they would nuke them in the water
a similar threat they made to the us during the vietnam war -- ie if the us were to use nuclear weopns on north vietnam -- china would retaliate--- vietnam marked the limit of the westward expansion of the anglosaxons----or the west or whatever else you may want to call it--thanks in part to china.
when the treaty for the repatriation of hong kong was signed the british had no idea that in 1997 they would be dealing with a china that could defend itself----had china not reached that point by 1997 the british would have held a referendum asking whether the people of hong kong wished to remain under british rule--they would said yes no doubt-- and britain would then have maintained control of hong kong using a moral argument to overide the terms of the repatriation agreement
when the uk handed hong kong back they did so because they had to they were no match for china --navy or not ---
to an objective observer that transfer was a sign of weakness on the part of the british ---if we use the logic of realpolitc
the zero possiblity of the us and uk preventing the chineese annexation or conquest of tibet is another example
lets distinguish what is likely to happen from what we may want to happen---- believe me i would personally prefer a status quo if the alternative is another blood bath-- but you and i dont make the rules that govern the ascension and decline of nation states
your hahahing suggests to me that you personalize these arguments-- your sense of personal self esteem seem to be ridiculously dependant on this imperial fantasy--- but that too is a symptom of decline................
Britain would not have gone to war over Hong Kong, I would think. All China would have to do would be to turn off the water, etc. and Hong Kong would have folded.
At best, Britain would have offered the Hong Kong citizens citizenship and then ship them out to England.
At best, Britain would have offered the Hong Kong citizens citizenship and then ship them out to England.
i agree britain wouldnt have gone to war--- they would not have had to because it would have been no contest-my point was that the handover highlighted how much the relative power of the 2 nation had changed since the opium wars-- and that trend continues
cortez"your hahahing suggests to me that you personalize these arguments-- your sense of personal self esteem seem to be ridiculously dependant on this imperial fantasy--- but that too is a symptom of decline................" No my haha was because you are hell bent on the fact that you think the us is in decline and china is going to be the next great superpower. china will be like russia where they can fight wars around there borders, where the us and the uk can fight wars all around the world. thats because having a huge army and a few nukes doesnt put you on par with the us and the uk. "but that too is a symptom of decline.." How can someone from europe talk to me about decline.. europe has been declining for years.
do you understand how much other countries owe the u.s. its a lot more than we owe to other countries. we just dont collect , were to nice. Another thing about debt is someone has be able to make you pay up.