18302 pts ยท January 24, 2016
https://i.imgur.com/KqLeOuW.gif
If they think there's no further benefit, leave NATO. Since none have & they're still under its protection. They should pay their share.
The limitations of the scenarios (morale, allies, etc) are more subjective factors, which are MUCH harder to implement & beside my points.
The only information I need to get across is US military superiority, considering the US had more handicaps than the UK, it did that well.
Perfect for a medium with limited characters & attention spans, especially for those without much military knowledge eg. other guy.
I disagree. They're concise, & give a good objective overview of military capabilities within constraints of hypothetical scenarios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTsiibNiPGg
This is a disadvantageous scenario for the US (on the attack with none of its external bases) to show how superior the US is:
You're British then. Good military, but woefully outmatched by the US. This is coming from a fellow Commonwealth citizen btw.
Reasons why you think the US will give in first* Facts are still that China suffers disproportionally, especially if the US holds course.
One thing you're forgetting is that most of China's neighbors hate China. All China has to do is keep up the expansionism.
Australia is cracking down on China for IP theft and political interference, there is potential leverage there. SK is firmly allied to US.
Everyone? No ire was directed at those already meeting the 2%, so no. Also, all members are under 2% are still climing, so again, no.
You are hilariously mistaken. The rest of the world combined doesn't have the naval, air, & logistical power to successfully invade the US.
Alienating what allies though? The ones under spending their commitments in military alliances? Good. NATO needs to be stronger.
If it wasn't for US/NATO, the USSR would have conquered all of Europe. Is it too much to ask promises to actually be fulfilled?
Unless we talk about Hong Kong, the CCP is trying very hard to erode their rights.
No... Look up forced organ harvesting in China, & the treatment of falun gong demonstrators & the Uighur people in Xinjiang.
No, it's because US intelligence knows there's strong links between Huawei and the PLA.
It's not that simple, but that is how they work. China can't hope to match US tariffs, thus they lose out a lot more if escalated.
He's talking about NATO defense spending agreements. Most EU NATO members have been breaking their promises for years.
South Korea, Japan, & Australia are all geopolitically relevant pro-Trump US allies. Don't be blinded by your biases.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0017383511000052
Those arguments lack proper scope into history and are missing a lot of the facts about the subject, it's not as conclusive as that. Here:
How about you look at history, it is littered with countless wars and battles for conquest. Also, psych for war is NOT fully understood yet.
Expected reward is why our morality evolved, be a good & useful person in a group & you can reap the benefits of other good & useful people.
Takes guts to engage in a sabre duel, fighting when losing and wounded even more so. Just the kind of man you want at your side in battle
The only thing irrelevant is his status. I come from a tiny racial minority that's suffered and continues to suffer. Yet I agree w/ him. 2/2
Wrong. He is advocating far more freedom of action than most, with the stated extra ideal of people shutting up about it all. 1/2
controversial & have had many invasive & restrictive laws which all tie into his 2nd sentence. I think you are close minded. 2/2
If they think there's no further benefit, leave NATO. Since none have & they're still under its protection. They should pay their share.
The limitations of the scenarios (morale, allies, etc) are more subjective factors, which are MUCH harder to implement & beside my points.
The only information I need to get across is US military superiority, considering the US had more handicaps than the UK, it did that well.
Perfect for a medium with limited characters & attention spans, especially for those without much military knowledge eg. other guy.
I disagree. They're concise, & give a good objective overview of military capabilities within constraints of hypothetical scenarios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTsiibNiPGg
This is a disadvantageous scenario for the US (on the attack with none of its external bases) to show how superior the US is:
You're British then. Good military, but woefully outmatched by the US. This is coming from a fellow Commonwealth citizen btw.
Reasons why you think the US will give in first* Facts are still that China suffers disproportionally, especially if the US holds course.
One thing you're forgetting is that most of China's neighbors hate China. All China has to do is keep up the expansionism.
Australia is cracking down on China for IP theft and political interference, there is potential leverage there. SK is firmly allied to US.
Everyone? No ire was directed at those already meeting the 2%, so no. Also, all members are under 2% are still climing, so again, no.
You are hilariously mistaken. The rest of the world combined doesn't have the naval, air, & logistical power to successfully invade the US.
Alienating what allies though? The ones under spending their commitments in military alliances? Good. NATO needs to be stronger.
If it wasn't for US/NATO, the USSR would have conquered all of Europe. Is it too much to ask promises to actually be fulfilled?
Unless we talk about Hong Kong, the CCP is trying very hard to erode their rights.
No... Look up forced organ harvesting in China, & the treatment of falun gong demonstrators & the Uighur people in Xinjiang.
No, it's because US intelligence knows there's strong links between Huawei and the PLA.
It's not that simple, but that is how they work. China can't hope to match US tariffs, thus they lose out a lot more if escalated.
He's talking about NATO defense spending agreements. Most EU NATO members have been breaking their promises for years.
South Korea, Japan, & Australia are all geopolitically relevant pro-Trump US allies. Don't be blinded by your biases.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0017383511000052
Those arguments lack proper scope into history and are missing a lot of the facts about the subject, it's not as conclusive as that. Here:
How about you look at history, it is littered with countless wars and battles for conquest. Also, psych for war is NOT fully understood yet.
Expected reward is why our morality evolved, be a good & useful person in a group & you can reap the benefits of other good & useful people.
Takes guts to engage in a sabre duel, fighting when losing and wounded even more so. Just the kind of man you want at your side in battle
The only thing irrelevant is his status. I come from a tiny racial minority that's suffered and continues to suffer. Yet I agree w/ him. 2/2
Wrong. He is advocating far more freedom of action than most, with the stated extra ideal of people shutting up about it all. 1/2
controversial & have had many invasive & restrictive laws which all tie into his 2nd sentence. I think you are close minded. 2/2