Red dawn remake

I have to say this movie was a let down, but in particular, it seems they went out of their way not to implicate china into their scenario. Youre telling me that the north koreans and russians invade part of america, without china's involvement. Like theyre any better than the russians or north koreans? In my estimate china is probly the biggest of the three threats globally. Idk that just reminded me about all the advertisements on tv abt how awesome china is and how companies are helping it to grow, like were bffs or something, and im like wtf. First of all, youre wasting your advertising dollars on me, an american, by talking abt all the shit youre doing in china. Like i give a shit. And second, we should view the chinese government exactly as we did the soviet government, because just being that they sale us cheap shit, DOES NOT mean we have shared interests. In fact we have opposing interests. These guys are cyber attacking us all the time which i feel should be an act of war but its a new technology without any kind of international rules. And why the hell are we alwYs on defence when it comes to cyber warfare. Our guys arent good enough to fight fire with fire? To at leadt make it painful for them somehow? Its like were always the victim and it barely gets any news coverage, let alone the attention of any politicians.

What channels do you watch that run Chinese propaganda?

I don't think its fair to characterize the Chinese as the new USSR or to put them on the same level as N. Korea (even if it is their fault such a state exists). While I wouldn't trust them, they're simply playing the same games we are (and doing a much worse job at it). Sometimes their interests align with ours, often they don't. Either way, our fates as nations are intertwined.

As far as the Chinese invading the US, thats really funny. While their army may be larger, the US military is better trained, equipped, and funded. Our long range abilities are greater. Our Navy stronger (throughout history the words Chinese and Navy have never gone well together). Our land forces more experienced (we have a veteran army, theirs hasn't seen combat since they invaded Vietnam). More over, China is surrounded us US allies (Japan, S. Korea, ~Vietnam, Republic of China, India, etc), while China has no friends in North America. Not only would a Chinese invasion of the US be financially crippling to China, not only would their military not be up to the task, but the logistics would be all but impossible. The Soviet scenario made more sense because the Soviets had no financial ties with the US and weren't surrounded by US friendly countries.

As for the movie being disappointing, I haven't seen it but couldn't imagine it being worse the the original.

I heard that the CIA was ramping up its cyber program with most resources going to offensive capabilities. That said, did you ever consider that the reason that you don't always hear of US cyber attacks is because we're good at it. Stutnix aside (which I think we wanted they to know it was from us).

Hou have t seen any commercials from companies featuring their a complishments in china? I can literally think of four or five off the top of my head that ive seen. Anyway, i just find it hard to believe china would be sitting in between russia and NK in a situation like that, and not be a participant. And im not worried about china now, or really ever when it comes to an invasion, im more concerned geopolitically about china 20-30 years feom now. To think we are immune to them is just a farce. And actually, id say theyre doing a better job of playing the game than we are, because unlike them, we dont always persue whats in our best national interest, like when the left tries to limit our development, or sees us as too powerful. The chinese are doig what countries are supposed to do.

Historically, China has always had manpower. They have been on the cusp of world greatness many times, but always fail to get there. How many time has an inferior nation or tribe brought them to their knees???

Nah, I ain't worried about China.

Marconius wrote:Historically, China has always had manpower. They have been on the cusp of world greatness many times, but always fail to get there. How many time has an inferior nation or tribe brought them to their knees???

Nah, I ain't worried about China.

And why does this happen? Is that any different now?

While circumstances change, even types of governance change, certain institutional problems that have been around from the turn of the AD still seem to persist.

I honestly think it is because the bulk of the population is pacifists. It also allows them to live and work in a less than free society. China has never been a free society. Prolly wrong, but just a thought.

They werent too passive in korea. It doesnt matter what the people want in china, theyre just cogs in the machine. Its whatever the leadership wants. U think chinese peasants want a new carrier, or stealth fighter when most of the people outside the cities are starving? I think if snything has prevented them from being a world power is the chinese lack of a maritime tradition. Theyre a traditional landpower.

Marconius wrote:I honestly think it is because the bulk of the population is pacifists. It also allows them to live and work in a less than free society. China has never been a free society. Prolly wrong, but just a thought.

As a whole, yes. Thats the legacy of Confucianism. However if you look closely you'll see that modern China tends to have several small uprisings every year. That said, to my understanding most of these are villages rebelling against corrupt local governments, not against Beijing.

I was more getting at the history of corruption, bureaucratic infighting, and rural-urban rivalry destabilizing the nation and allowing it to fracture into smaller countries (Warring States and Three Kingdoms periods) or be conquered by otherwise lesser nations (Mongolians). While I don't see an outside force invading China any time soon (except for perhaps the N. Koreans, which would be somewhat comical), there is still lots of corruption in both local and national levels and huge discrepancies between life in the city and life in the country (the urbanites mostly live in a modern society, while those in the country often live in third world conditions).

Pun wrote:They werent too passive in korea. It doesnt matter what the people want in china, theyre just cogs in the machine. Its whatever the leadership wants. U think chinese peasants want a new carrier, or stealth fighter when most of the people outside the cities are starving? I think if snything has prevented them from being a world power is the chinese lack of a maritime tradition. Theyre a traditional landpower.

I agree. While Chinese history is full of great fleets and huge naval battles, most of those took place on rivers and lakes. The attempted Mongolian conquest of Japan (essentially a Sino-Korean invasion) is an excellent example of what historically happened when the Chinese tried to put a large fleet to sea. A reluctance to go on long sea voyages is also the reason that the Chinese diplomats dispatched to Rome during the Han period never made it to the Mediterranean (the diplomats made it about half way and were told they would have to go on a several month ship voyage to get the rest of the way. They instead wrote down everything the locals could tell them about Rome and returned home. Thus Rome and the Han Empire never achieved direct communication).

But the russians never had much seafaring experience either, until under the soviets in the 60s and 70s. I would also add that all of thos taking place in a time where america is widely seen to be on the decline, both at home and abroad, and they really dont need to worry about beating us militarily, as long as they keep beating us economically and geopolitically by backing anti-us measures along with russia and their general sphere of influence. You do realize theyve transformed their country off the backs of america into a modern power in just 30 years or so. I think theres some art of war principles at work. Defeating your enemy without going to war. We forget the chinese have an eastern mindset which is often different than ours. I think theyre getting while the getting is good, and probably see us as a bigger threat to ourselves than to them. Theyre schooling us and were taking it

I just dont understand why anyone would consider them any more benign than the soviets, or even the re-emergence of the soviet-style government under putin/medvedev. Just because theyre quasi-capitalist now?

And they may need us for now, but only until we weaken or crumble to the point that were more a liability than a benefit, and the rest of the world (as it already has begun to) will come flocking to invest in them rather than us.

Pun wrote:But the russians never had much seafaring experience either, until under the soviets in the 60s and 70s. I would also add that all of thos taking place in a time where america is widely seen to be on the decline, both at home and abroad, and they really dont need to worry about beating us militarily, as long as they keep beating us economically and geopolitically by backing anti-us measures along with russia and their general sphere of influence. You do realize theyve transformed their country off the backs of america into a modern power in just 30 years or so. I think theres some art of war principles at work. Defeating your enemy without going to war. We forget the chinese have an eastern mindset which is often different than ours. I think theyre getting while the getting is good, and probably see us as a bigger threat to ourselves than to them. Theyre schooling us and were taking it

I agree that there are some principles at work. I think thats why they shy away from confronting us militarily, instead preferring to challenge our cyber vulnerabilities. From strength to weakness. That said, they don't have the benefit of a Sun Wu or a Zhuge Liang. I think thats evident based off the geopolitical position they've allowed themselves to be forced into.

To the north is a Russia that, while it likes China more than the US, has its own interests at play. More over, one mustn't be to quick to forget what transpired between the Chinese and Russians in the 1980's.

To the east are the two Koreas, Japan, and the Republic of China (ROC). South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are squarely under the US's sphere of influence and variably hostile toward China (things seem hit-and-miss with S. Korea, the Japanese and Chinese are constantly having border disputes that have led to a very volatile relationship and lots of anti-Japanese sentiment in China as of late, and China still claims the island of Taiwan making relations with the ROC impossible). While North Korea is supposed to be China's ally, its unclear how much control the Chinese have. What is clear, as evidenced in China's support for the most recent sanctions on N. Korea after the nuclear test, is that China isn't willing to blindly support Pyongyang's actions. If things really did go south between the US and N. Korea, I see the Chinese sitting it out. I think N. Korea has become a liability to them.

To the south-east are the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, and Burma. The Philippines are generally friendly toward the US, even if less so than seventy years ago. China invaded Vietnam not long after we left, and has subsequently warmed considerably to the US. While Sino-Vietnamese relations had subsequently warmed, they've recently had a row over ownership of some islands that seems to have chilled relations. Burma, while long disfavored by the US, has recently opened up considerably. I know little about where Laos's sympathies lie.

To the south is India, who favor's its self as a regional power and is generally quite US friendly. The Chinese might be able to exploit the US's relationship with Pakistan to wedge the US and India, however I'm skeptical such a plan would pay off. I think that as India continues to develop and demand more resources it will become a major rival for the Chinese.

Pakistan knows its strategic position, but I think they have a tendency to overplay their hand. Pakistan wants to be a power, but I don't think they'll ever amount to much. The north of their country is a tribal no-mans-land where the government holds no sway. Religious fanaticism within the nation will prevent them from modernizing any time soon. Pakistan played with fire when they covertly backed the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then got burned when the Taliban invaded a sizable portion of Pakistan. While Islamabad may like to think its pulling the strings, it'll never be more than a nuclear armed puppet. I don't see any loyalty here, who ever pays the best will be the one pulling the strings (had to resist a different puppeteer metaphor). Should the Pakistani government ever fall, I think it would be a serious problem for the Indian's, Chinese, and us. We currently hold the upper hand in Pakistan, but that could change.

Afghanistan is just a mess, ruled by a government thats simply trying to survive. I think they'll dance for whoever can help them maintain any sense of internal control. Like in Pakistan, we have an upper hand over the Chinese, but with some strategic bribes this could easily change.

The Chinese are trying to play Iran, but I think Tehran's days are limited. Eventually a pro-US government will take control. I don't see a future here for the Chinese so long as we don't make any particularly serious blunders.

Uzbekistan, situated to the west of China, is generally friendly to the US (we've ran missions into Afghanistan from there). Their preference tends to waver between the US and Russia.

Tajikistan on China's west margin is in the Russian's pocket. The US won't likely find much love here, but I'm not sure the Chinese will either.

Kyrgyzstan, also on China's western margin, in home to a US military base.

I think we have the Chinese seriously out positioned, and I think they've only recently made an overt effort of changing that.

Just like a caged animal. Of course georgia was. Us ally and look what that got them. But currently they dont need to expand anyway geographically. Thats more of a 20th century concept. Besides what would the us do if say china did invade a small relatively insignificant neighbor? What happened to the russians over georgia? NottA

For now atleast you have a large portion of the world who sees america and the west's best days behind them, and you have russia, china, nk, cuba, maybe still benezuela, iran, syria still, pakistan on and off as they play both sides, and more, all of whom generally take an anti western posture, and are a coalition of mutual benefit.