Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Taiwan would lose half its population and China less than .1% in such a war. Taiwan would lose its economy, China less than .1%. Is Taiwan really going to oppose the invasion? Is dead better than red?
An independent Taiwan represents a major competitor to China. An annexed Taiwan represents an important increase in industrial, research and military capacity and a vital location for expansion in the Pacific.
North Korea and China can easily invade South Korea. Is the average AMerican willing to go to war against both contries to save South Korea?

Clinton sent 2 carriers at a time when America was much stronger and China much weaker, two decades later it is doubtful that Obama would be allowed to do the same and that China would pay any attention to the carriers (being there doesn't mean they will attack, starting WW III over a small island).

Blockades were going to suffocate Napoleon, Germany in WW II, etc, but they didn't.

In Napoleon's era there was no connected global economy. Germany's economy was war-oriented and China is totally dependent on global exports. More than half its oil must be imported and it's sea routes easily blocked.

When China invades Taiwan and South Korea (which they will not do) it's economy will collapse.

China is for the moment more occupied with its internal affairs. The political leadership is scared to death for a "chinese spring". Many wrong internal investments were made and the families of the top businessmen are already leaving China.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

When you are severely overpopulated and the world is in a depression, good old fashioned war is the only way to ensure economic development and reduce population.
If anybody ever needed and can get Lebensraum, it's China. If anybody has excess territory and cannot defend it, it's Chile, Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay. Is America willing to go to war over South America?

So China will invade Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay to create a Lebensraum? The old fashioned war will not increase the economy in a country, it will ruin the economy

I'll include 2 posts that I just made in another thread about China in this forum:

Japan dominated the world economy with minimal military spending (defensive in nature), because it didn't intend to start a war.
In contrast, Hitler did not mass produce vegetable oils, VWs, Mercedes, railroad engines, freighters or Condors in order to export them and grow economically (like Schacht, his economist wanted), but put his money on thousands of planes, tanks, the Bismarck, expensive synthetic fuel, etc, and attacked Europe in a few years.
China is both exporting unprecedented amounts of goods (like Japan did) and using much of its income to grow militarily (like Hitler did, but at a slower pace). No country that is not threatened would be foolish enough to spend fortunes expanding and modernizing rapidly its military for offensive operations if it does not intend to use it.


Germany, Italy, Japan, and the USSR were just upgrading their obsolete military in 1938, both claiming for defensive requirements. Nothing wrong with that. Until Germany and the USSR invaded Poland and then the USSR invaded Finland, Lithuania, Bessarabia, etc, for defensive purposes, nothing wrong with that.
Unfortunately, the allies got tired of playing along with Hitler when it was too late, nothing wrong with that.

Iran and North Korea are just updating their military and their nuclear arsenals, nothing worng with that either, they're cool people and Chinese allies.

Sadam Hussein was updating his military supposedly to defend himself from Iran, nothing wrong with that, until he invaded Kuwait and threatened Arabia. Does it take a lot of insight to conclude that people who are not threatened and spend excessively in weapons probably intend to use them?

2010 steel production in million tonnes (from wiki, List of countries by steel production)
China 626.7
EU 172.9
Japan 109.6
USA 80.6
Russia 67
India 66.8
Korea 56.5

By the way, apparently the highest per capita steel production is that of Luxembug! Just 512,000 people produce 2.6 million tonnes (1.5% of the EU)

Should China occupy Japan and Korea its capacity would exceed 800 million tonnes (a lot of ships, submarines, tanks, etc), much greater than that of the rest of the world.

for comparison purposes:
1939 Steel Production (million tons): USA 51.4, Germany 23.3, USSR 18.8, UK 13.2, France 6.2, Japan 5.8, Italy 2.3, Canada 1.4, Australia 1.2, India 1. Note the absurdity of India with 378 million people, inexpensive labor and plenty of ore producing only 1 million tons and Australia with 7 million people producing 1.2 million tons. In contrast in 2009 India would produce 11 times more steel than Australia, although India no longer includes Pakistan and Bangla Desh and has no access to British investors, as it did in 1939. This provides a glimpse at the extreme inefficiency of British colonial government in India.

World Population in 1939 (millions): China 515, India 378 (in 1939 it included Pakistan and Bangladesh), USSR 170, USA 131, Germany (including Austria, etc,) 84, Japan 71 (plus 23.4 Koreans), UK 48, Italy 44, France 42, Brazil 41, Poland 35, Romania 20, Philippines 16, Czechoslovakia 15.3, Canada 11.3, South Africa 10.2, Hungary 9.1, Holland 8.7 (plus 69 from the Dutch West Indies), Belgium 8.4, Greece 7.2, Australia 7, Bulgaria 6.5, Malaya 4.4, Denmark 3.8, Finland 3.7, Norway 3, Lithuania 2.6, Yugoslavia 2, New Zealand 1.6, (these countries didn´t fight, but had: Spain 25, Mexico 20, Iran 14.3, Argentina 9, Portugal 6.5, Sweden 6.3, Switzerland 4.2).

It can be clearly seen that the allies had a huge advantage in steel production, population, etc, when WW II broke out. In contrast, China has a big advantage in several respects today.

China also leads the world by much in tungsten, aluminum, magnesium, peanuts, rice, wheat, farm fish, etc,

Although Chinese arms exports are still far below those of the US and Russia, the yearly rate of increase in arms exports is far greater for China, so that perhaps in 8 years China may surpass both the US and Russia in this field. The same is true of the commercial aviation industry, which China may dominate within 20 years.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

2010 steel production in million tonnes (from wiki, List of countries by steel production)
China 626.7
EU 172.9
Japan 109.6
USA 80.6
Russia 67
India 66.8
Korea 56.5

By the way, apparently the highest per capita steel production is that of Luxembug! Just 512,000 people produce 2.6 million tonnes (1.5% of the EU)

Should China occupy Japan and Korea its capacity would exceed 800 million tonnes (a lot of ships, submarines, tanks, etc), much greater than that of the rest of the world.

for comparison purposes:
1939 Steel Production (million tons): USA 51.4, Germany 23.3, USSR 18.8, UK 13.2, France 6.2, Japan 5.8, Italy 2.3, Canada 1.4, Australia 1.2, India 1. Note the absurdity of India with 378 million people, inexpensive labor and plenty of ore producing only 1 million tons and Australia with 7 million people producing 1.2 million tons. In contrast in 2009 India would produce 11 times more steel than Australia, although India no longer includes Pakistan and Bangla Desh and has no access to British investors, as it did in 1939. This provides a glimpse at the extreme inefficiency of British colonial government in India.

World Population in 1939 (millions): China 515, India 378 (in 1939 it included Pakistan and Bangladesh), USSR 170, USA 131, Germany (including Austria, etc,) 84, Japan 71 (plus 23.4 Koreans), UK 48, Italy 44, France 42, Brazil 41, Poland 35, Romania 20, Philippines 16, Czechoslovakia 15.3, Canada 11.3, South Africa 10.2, Hungary 9.1, Holland 8.7 (plus 69 from the Dutch West Indies), Belgium 8.4, Greece 7.2, Australia 7, Bulgaria 6.5, Malaya 4.4, Denmark 3.8, Finland 3.7, Norway 3, Lithuania 2.6, Yugoslavia 2, New Zealand 1.6, (these countries didn´t fight, but had: Spain 25, Mexico 20, Iran 14.3, Argentina 9, Portugal 6.5, Sweden 6.3, Switzerland 4.2).

It can be clearly seen that the allies had a huge advantage in steel production, population, etc, when WW II broke out. In contrast, China has a big advantage in several respects today.

China also leads the world by much in tungsten, aluminum, magnesium, peanuts, rice, wheat, farm fish, etc,

Although Chinese arms exports are still far below those of the US and Russia, the yearly rate of increase in arms exports is far greater for China, so that perhaps in 8 years China may surpass both the US and Russia in this field. The same is true of the commercial aviation industry, which China may dominate within 20 years.

Why do you think China is planning to go to war and occupy Korea and Japan? It would be much better trade with Korea and Japan than to attack them, don't you think?

Like I said, people who are not threatened and intend to trade, like Japan, Germany, etc, do not waste a fortune building up a massive military. They simply try to make as many trade partners as possible.
Although China doesn't talk too much about it, anti Japanese sentiment runs deep (as it does in North Korea). Japanese investment in China is probably close to peaking in a shrinking world economy. Invading Japan not only increases the Chinese industrial capacity, the earnings from the nationalized Japanese industry in China would remain in China.
China has been trying to invade Japan since the time of Kublai Khan, even when Japan had little to offer. Today it is an industrial powerhouse accross a pond from China.
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are the only powerful American allies in the region, but are far apart and therefore easy to conquer peacemeal. Once they fall the Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc, don´t stand a chance. Then Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay.
The main question is will the people from these nations be much worse off or even a little better off under a powerful, authoritarian government that limits population growth, etc, and coordinates resource exploitation, agricultural production, transportation, etc,?

If you combine all the Asian industry to supply the expanding Chinese and North Korean armies (and perhaps the Vietnamese army), you have an unstoppable monster.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Like I said, people who are not threatened and intend to trade, like Japan, Germany, etc, do not waste a fortune building up a massive military. They simply try to make as many trade partners as possible.
Although China doesn't talk too much about it, anti Japanese sentiment runs deep (as it does in North Korea). Japanese investment in China is probably close to peaking in a shrinking world economy. Invading Japan not only increases the Chinese industrial capacity, the earnings from the nationalized Japanese industry in China would remain in China.
China has been trying to invade Japan since the time of Kublai Khan, even when Japan had little to offer. Today it is an industrial powerhouse accross a pond from China, closer than Taiwan.
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are the only powerful American allies in the region, but are far apart and therefore easy to conquer peacemeal. Once they fall the Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc, don´t stand a chance. Then Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay.
The main question is will the people from these nations be much worse off or even a little better off under a powerful, authoritarian government that limits population growth, etc, and coordinates resource exploitation, agricultural production, transportation, etc,?

If you combine all the Asian industry to supply the expanding Chinese and North Korean armies (and perhaps the Vietnamese army), you have an unstoppable monster.

Did you know that Belgium once tried to invade China? But we didn't because we have no room for all the prisoners of war

Sounds like a Belgian conondrum. How about putting them in China?

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Like I said, people who are not threatened and intend to trade, like Japan, Germany, etc, do not waste a fortune building up a massive military. They simply try to make as many trade partners as possible.
Although China doesn't talk too much about it, anti Japanese sentiment runs deep (as it does in North Korea). Japanese investment in China is probably close to peaking in a shrinking world economy. Invading Japan not only increases the Chinese industrial capacity, the earnings from the nationalized Japanese industry in China would remain in China.
China has been trying to invade Japan since the time of Kublai Khan, even when Japan had little to offer. Today it is an industrial powerhouse accross a pond from China, closer than Taiwan.
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are the only powerful American allies in the region, but are far apart and therefore easy to conquer peacemeal. Once they fall the Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc, don´t stand a chance. Then Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay.
The main question is will the people from these nations be much worse off or even a little better off under a powerful, authoritarian government that limits population growth, etc, and coordinates resource exploitation, agricultural production, transportation, etc,?

If you combine all the Asian industry to supply the expanding Chinese and North Korean armies (and perhaps the Vietnamese army), you have an unstoppable monster.

China will loose everything and the mainland China will plunge into chaos, both economically and politically if they even attempt to invade another country. China needs the world and the world needs China. If they are moving toward anybody they will loose the majority of their customers

Taiwan is not a foreign country. According to the Chinese it is just a rogue province.
In a world depression foreign trade collapses, so the best way to keep the people employed is fisrt military spending and ultimately war (before the huge accumulated military spending does not become obsolete, losing its value).
During the 1929 depression, America could not consume even its own goods, much less import enormous quantities from other countries. Industry, turism, agriculture, etc, collapsed. The only factor that has delayed the effects of the present depression is the absurd amount of credit, which had allowed many families to buy houses, cars, etc, that they cannot afford. As the credit system collapses so will demand.