Do you Think We Should Start A War with China?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeap, WWII brought the US, Europe, Russia, and Switzerland lots of wealth.

WHY are there more people here in favor of starting a war with China than forcibly disarming North Korea?

As someone who recently made a political essay on Pakistan's situation, i can say that putting troops in Afghanistan and close to the Pakistan border is a very good idea. Currently it is rather well known that the Talibans have taken over the tribal villages in the north west of Pakistan, and that the local army has pulled out (thanks to Musharraf the "hero" being threatened by the religious parties). In any event, i've even read that the tribal chieftains have asked Afghanistan's president to help them, not the local government. I haven't heard from what goes on in Pakistan lately though, the PPP and the ex president (Nawaz Sharif i think) are supposed to have made a coalition, but i haven't heard of their views regarding this issue.

Are you kidding me?

WWII destroyed something like a third of production in USSR, and turned Europe into a wasteland. Sure, neutral countries like Switzerland and Sweden became richer because they stayed out of it.

But are you seriously suggesting that countries actually became RICHER because of WWII? How, in the name of John McCarthy, do you figure that?

Yes, the United States experienced its two greatest booms in the 1920s and in the late 1940s and 1950s, right after WWI and WWII. The Roaring 20s and the Booming 50s are well recorded historic facts.

The leading reasons for this was because of innovations made during war, a decrease in the number of workers, an increased demand for workers to rebuild, and increased government spending.

History is full of post war economic booms. Granted, losing countries often do not share in the economic prosperity, but that is because of artificial restrictions put on the country by the victor, such as with Germany after WWI.

All those building have to be rebuilt. And the technology to rebuild it is often better then what was there before. The building have modern standards.

the roaring 20's were also known as 'the gilded age' and led directly into the great depression. Whether or not the post-war boom of the 50's had anything to do with the war is being hotly debated by various economists, given our current economic situation and its apparent similarity to the great depression.

The 20s were GREAT! Not only in America but in Berlin especially . But for America, the gilded age didnt last and the great depression followed. Hyperinflation seems to cause crippling depressions along with deflation. A good example of hyperinflation is what happend in Russia in the 90s after the dissolution of the USSR. Im tempted to wonder if the Russian depression was even worse than the US great depression.

Well, I am going to believe that the wars did bring about economic prospertity for two major reasons;

1) Every history professor that I discussed this issue with has told me this to be the case.

2) If your look at the history of the United States it has been the case after almost every war.

Either way you have a war with china and you are going to loose.

Depends, we didn't lose a war with the USSR. They had more weapons and people than us.

Historians by default lack credibility on economic matters IMO. Or pretty much all but the most basic cause effect relationships. For example, in a poll on the great depression, economists have rather divergent opinions on the effects of the new deal on the depression with historians, historians opinions best being summed up by "Go FDR! Ra ra!" I am not sure what the consensus on the war's effect on the economy is though, but if LKL can find economists agreeing with her than that trumps the history professors IMO.

Not the economists I have talked too. Most of them are certain that war helps certain aspects of the economy.

You didnt exactly fight them.

So they didnt exactly lose either.

Their governmental system crumbled of course, but the cold "war" was over by then. Cosmonauts and astronauts had even shook hands in space. Glasnost. Perestroika.

It was a certain amount of trust being extended by both sides that allowed the softening of sovietism, not strength of arms. I believe it was Reagan that visited the USSR, and then the soviet leader visited Washington.

He also went to China.

You also haven’t regained many former allies you lost in the cold war, plus there is the failed campaigns in other countries as a result of the attempts to hold onto or win allies. I used to live in Angola a good example of how the American backed the wrong guy and got taken for a ride.

The irony is that is the second biggest producer of oil in the region and may well take over Nigeria now there is more stability. It is also one of the largest chevron oil operations. Savimbi said he would throw out the oil companies, you are quite lucky indeed to still be there.

Also you are forgetting the Sino-Soviet split again china has won. Its economic reforms have secured it's future.

But its population control policies on the other hand...

On the other hand, they have a huge population, if they didn't try to control it the situation would be worse.

Chinas biggest asset is its manpower. Mao mistakenly thought that that he could bring small factories to the farms, what resulted was a famine, because there was no farm labour. Since then they have been a lot smarter. The cities are growing and new cities are springing up all the time. They are also mechanising their farming to bring it line with other industries. They are also a major importer of food and goods.

They are not doing too badly to put it bluntly. Whilst you can speculate who is going to be the next casualty of this economic crisis, it is obvious that china has a good chance of surviving.