Quote:
Originally Posted by dtennent
To me, the discussion is much more complex. For instance, the firepower we developed during World War II is what won the war. However, our reaching out to Germany, Italy, and Japan after the war and helping them rebuild dynamic economies, is what stopped the cycle of wars that had occurred over the previous decades. While there are certainly hostile countries, the larger battle is economic. China is currently winning this war. Even if we could destroy them militarily, another state equal to or worse than the current one would rise up in its place. Nor can we continue to cede our manufacturing and technology to them. Furthermore, they have bought and secured key mining interests around the world. IMO, we need to lead the world (and bring our European allies with us) in holding China accountable for their current practice of stealing technology, keeping prices low to drive out competition, and using workers as disposable items. To simply slap tariffs on products without detailed context of what they need to change doesn’t help our cause. However, a concerted and planned multinational effort could create the economic pain that would bring China around. It will take time as we cannot reverse the effects of the last 50 years overnight.
I guess this puts me into a third camp. Having the superior firing power but using diplomacy to achieve lasting changes. Instead of using the Glock, let’s use a taser to immobilize the fanatic no matter what his religious beliefs are.
|
Thanks for you post. You make some excellent points and I agree with many of them. When I started the thread I thought about a third camp but decided it was best to let that emerge in the discussion. Wanted to keep it simple to start off with.
Certainly agree with your comments about China too … there are multiple levels of warfare beyond the kinetic, and they are eating our lunch in that regard. Best left for a separate thread.
One area of disagreement, and harkening back to 767’s post, I would opt for the single “bang” vs a taser to immobilize.
