The Open Bar Chatroom

Bruno

Carking the 6th wrote:

Belongs to the Cavemen

Hi

How is everyone doing

Hifive5 wrote:

How is everyone doing

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Hifive5 wrote:

How is everyone doing

That's about the least interesting subject to discuss. You REALLY don't wanna know what's going on in my bowels.

Hifive5 wrote:

How is everyone doing

SrbijaCetnik wrote:

Hifive5 wrote:

How is everyone doing

I'm fine

Hifive5 wrote:

SrbijaCetnik wrote:

Hifive5 wrote:

How is everyone doing

I'm fine

Nice to hear

tko

Hi

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Hifive5 wrote:

How is everyone doing

That's about the least interesting subject to discuss. You REALLY don't wanna know what's going on in my bowels.

Zorigent wrote:

Hi

Hi everyone!

hi

We have 3 Balkan accounts now. How?

Carking the 6th wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

The thing is, with the Soviet Union and the collective East, there really wasn't a "golden age". The biggest soviet success was probably WW2, but that came at the cost of tens of millions of lives, so pretty much an entire generation. The British Empire flourished for 200 years, the same as many of the other examples you gave. You're forgetting that the soviet collapse wasn't something that happened as a result of decisions made in 1985, it was in the works since 1945 at least. I'm not saying that they had no successes, but the ones they did came at a painfully high price and oftentimes weren't even as much as they were made out to be (have you read Orwell's Animal Farm? You'd understand if you did). Also, the response was broad because of what I was responding to, which was also quite general.

The 60’s through up to the 80’s were a bit of a golden age. Compared to previous time periods, life was significantly better, and the QOL was higher than basically all non-western countries. Just like Gaul or India, colonies such as Poland were not better off, and just like women in China or the Middle class in the British Empire many did not have easy lives, but significantly better than the past. It’s semi redundant to say that it was doomed to collapse from the start. So was the British Empire thanks to its immense diversity and treatment of non-whites, and same thing with Rome and its Oligarchical system. There was notable success, like being the first humans into space, highly advancing the medical and submarine (what would you call that?) fields, etc. You can’t discount all of this because life sucked compared to the west. Life sucked in the entire third world, the west was not the gold standard here and didn’t stave off millions of deaths and a madman dictator just a few decades prior. I think I have seen animal farm before, but it feels more like Stalin, who was only one era in the countries history.

Donk2.0 wrote:

For this entire section, I think you misunderstood what I was saying (although it's my fault for not making it as clear as I should have). I don't mean the US engaging in combat directly, more so it's believed ability to uphold security guarantees. In a TON of cases in recent history, the US threat of retaliation in response to something has been enough to avoid a conflict. If it weren't for US support in the 50s and 60s, Taiwan would have been taken by the PRC then. It's the mere fact that the US promised to defend it in the case of an attack that deterred it. If it weren't for that, the PLA wouldn't have had too much difficulty invading. In modern times, I agree with the videos you sent(I watch that exact content creator myself) and articles. Taiwan is now ready to resist Chinese influence(unlike in the 50s and 60s, without US support). The US military has been instrumental in the deterrence of conflicts around the world. It's hard to say how many were avoided, but I can say for certain, the world would be a very different place. In modern times, It's still the case. Why should the Philippines and Vietnam align themselves with the West against China if they know that they won't be protected? China is closer, holds more regional influence, and is quite capable of taking both of them down, but won't... because of possible US intervention. A dealbreaker for many US allies is defence agreements. If the military is scaled down, that advantage is lost. Vietnam and the Philipines probably won't end up in a conflict with China, but they would probably give in to demands, seeing no other alternative. This can't be forgotten: there are many dozens of cases where wars could have occurred, but didn't/won't because of security guarantees. That's what I'm talking about here.

China tried to take Vietnam after the Vietnam war and failed. An invasion of the Philippines would lead to endless gurrilla war and defeat. You don’t need 3x the size of the Chinese navy to have allies, they’ll hate China either way. The US in the long term has more pressing domestic issues that require attention, and auditing the military in order to reduce funding would allow you to upkeep a similar size while having the ability to manage a growing list of internal concerns. What’s the point of more planes when you have all this homelessness? Who needs another carrier when you can better education? You don’t need excessive force to help other countries, especially considering they have defended themselves before anyway.

Donk2.0 wrote:

I don't mean it that way. The entire cause of the war is Ukraine's intention to ally itself with the West, something it probably wouldn't have wanted to do if the US wasn't there to support it. Additionally, you must remember, Ukraine's military budget is 40 billion, while the aid they've received is 100 billion, that's a big difference. Although Ukraine would have probably had the ability to defend itself on its own, its offensive capability is certainly the result of foreign aid. Also, tying to what I said before, the entire continent would have likely looked a lot different if the US didn't have a world-class military, namely with the possible reluctance of post-soviet countries to join NATO(if that would have even become a thing) and the EU. Russia would have had much less of an issue picking off Moldova, Georgia, and other countries that receive/d aid or are part of NATO now. I also don't think that what you stated would be the result of a successful invasion would transpire. Putin would have used brutal tactics to suppress the Ukrainians and keep them at bay. If Russia was seeing real success on an international scale, we would probably be seeing a modern 1939 Germany right now.

Germany had a huge industrial, leadership and tactical advantage over the west in 1939. Its population was outpacing France. European Germany was almost equal in population to European France and Britain combined! Russia is outnumbered over 3 to 1 by the EU alone, and has a GDP about 8 times larger. Throw in America and you get twice the population and 10x the economy. Without the US they may be a bit poorer, but just looking at the fact the EU exists as a framework and the Nordic militaries (which are huge, conscription and heavily advanced domestic forces) exist shows that Europe would easily be fine. In fact they could rather easily support Ukraine themselves with a stronger military industry, having the same effect we see today. As for brutal tactics, the Nazis failed to pacify Poland with all their brutality, and this would be a bit less brutality and much stronger resistance. Your attacking a place larger than Afghanistan with a far weaker country than the USSR…

Donk2.0 wrote:

They are, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. By preparing for the worst, we are even better prepared for the best. China may not be in a strong position militarily right now, but in 2050, who knows? They are building 5th gen(probably garbage, but still functional) 5th gen fighters at a faster rate than ever done by the US or anything else. This, combined with massive investments in navy and other things, suggests that 30 years from now, the situation may be very different.

By 2050, the population of China is expected to go down by 100 million, halving by 2100. America will continue growing until 2080. This fall will also combine with older people on general, reducing military and working age populations and putting greater strain on them to take care of the old. This leads to them not having time to make children, which continues the cycle. China is only becoming weaker and weaker, and it’s likely that the CCP could very well collapse before this. China is not going to more powerful than the US in 2050, and it likely won’t ever reach its place as an enemy and authoritarian state (this whole decline is man made, by the CCP.)

Donk2.0 wrote:

Security guarantees go a LONG way. As I said, a dealbreaker for many countries.

True, but that same military also ruined the Middle East and the US in the Middle East. That powerful military damaged relations with Latin America as well. Not exactly being used a force for good yet, considering many of the actions and mistakes it has seen. But maybe if it sticks to its principles, then we can expect the military to be a positive force for US diplomacy.

Donk2.0 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Donk2.0 wrote:

The thing is, with the Soviet Union and the collective East, there really wasn't a "golden age". The biggest soviet success was probably WW2, but that came at the cost of tens of millions of lives, so pretty much an entire generation. The British Empire flourished for 200 years, the same as many of the other examples you gave. You're forgetting that the soviet collapse wasn't something that happened as a result of decisions made in 1985, it was in the works since 1945 at least. I'm not saying that they had no successes, but the ones they did came at a painfully high price and oftentimes weren't even as much as they were made out to be (have you read Orwell's Animal Farm? You'd understand if you did). Also, the response was broad because of what I was responding to, which was also quite general.

The 60’s through up to the 80’s were a bit of a golden age. Compared to previous time periods, life was significantly better, and the QOL was higher than basically all non-western countries. Just like Gaul or India, colonies such as Poland were not better off, and just like women in China or the Middle class in the British Empire many did not have easy lives, but significantly better than the past. It’s semi redundant to say that it was doomed to collapse from the start. So was the British Empire thanks to its immense diversity and treatment of non-whites, and same thing with Rome and its Oligarchical system. There was notable success, like being the first humans into space, highly advancing the medical and submarine (what would you call that?) fields, etc. You can’t discount all of this because life sucked compared to the west. Life sucked in the entire third world, the west was not the gold standard here and didn’t stave off millions of deaths and a madman dictator just a few decades prior. I think I have seen animal farm before, but it feels more like Stalin, who was only one era in the countries history.

Donk2.0 wrote:

For this entire section, I think you misunderstood what I was saying (although it's my fault for not making it as clear as I should have). I don't mean the US engaging in combat directly, more so it's believed ability to uphold security guarantees. In a TON of cases in recent history, the US threat of retaliation in response to something has been enough to avoid a conflict. If it weren't for US support in the 50s and 60s, Taiwan would have been taken by the PRC then. It's the mere fact that the US promised to defend it in the case of an attack that deterred it. If it weren't for that, the PLA wouldn't have had too much difficulty invading. In modern times, I agree with the videos you sent(I watch that exact content creator myself) and articles. Taiwan is now ready to resist Chinese influence(unlike in the 50s and 60s, without US support). The US military has been instrumental in the deterrence of conflicts around the world. It's hard to say how many were avoided, but I can say for certain, the world would be a very different place. In modern times, It's still the case. Why should the Philippines and Vietnam align themselves with the West against China if they know that they won't be protected? China is closer, holds more regional influence, and is quite capable of taking both of them down, but won't... because of possible US intervention. A dealbreaker for many US allies is defence agreements. If the military is scaled down, that advantage is lost. Vietnam and the Philipines probably won't end up in a conflict with China, but they would probably give in to demands, seeing no other alternative. This can't be forgotten: there are many dozens of cases where wars could have occurred, but didn't/won't because of security guarantees. That's what I'm talking about here.

China tried to take Vietnam after the Vietnam war and failed. An invasion of the Philippines would lead to endless gurrilla war and defeat. You don’t need 3x the size of the Chinese navy to have allies, they’ll hate China either way. The US in the long term has more pressing domestic issues that require attention, and auditing the military in order to reduce funding would allow you to upkeep a similar size while having the ability to manage a growing list of internal concerns. What’s the point of more planes when you have all this homelessness? Who needs another carrier when you can better education? You don’t need excessive force to help other countries, especially considering they have defended themselves before anyway.

Donk2.0 wrote:

I don't mean it that way. The entire cause of the war is Ukraine's intention to ally itself with the West, something it probably wouldn't have wanted to do if the US wasn't there to support it. Additionally, you must remember, Ukraine's military budget is 40 billion, while the aid they've received is 100 billion, that's a big difference. Although Ukraine would have probably had the ability to defend itself on its own, its offensive capability is certainly the result of foreign aid. Also, tying to what I said before, the entire continent would have likely looked a lot different if the US didn't have a world-class military, namely with the possible reluctance of post-soviet countries to join NATO(if that would have even become a thing) and the EU. Russia would have had much less of an issue picking off Moldova, Georgia, and other countries that receive/d aid or are part of NATO now. I also don't think that what you stated would be the result of a successful invasion would transpire. Putin would have used brutal tactics to suppress the Ukrainians and keep them at bay. If Russia was seeing real success on an international scale, we would probably be seeing a modern 1939 Germany right now.

Germany had a huge industrial, leadership and tactical advantage over the west in 1939. Its population was outpacing France. European Germany was almost equal in population to European France and Britain combined! Russia is outnumbered over 3 to 1 by the EU alone, and has a GDP about 8 times larger. Throw in America and you get twice the population and 10x the economy. Without the US they may be a bit poorer, but just looking at the fact the EU exists as a framework and the Nordic militaries (which are huge, conscription and heavily advanced domestic forces) exist shows that Europe would easily be fine. In fact they could rather easily support Ukraine themselves with a stronger military industry, having the same effect we see today. As for brutal tactics, the Nazis failed to pacify Poland with all their brutality, and this would be a bit less brutality and much stronger resistance. Your attacking a place larger than Afghanistan with a far weaker country than the USSR…

Donk2.0 wrote:

They are, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. By preparing for the worst, we are even better prepared for the best. China may not be in a strong position militarily right now, but in 2050, who knows? They are building 5th gen(probably garbage, but still functional) 5th gen fighters at a faster rate than ever done by the US or anything else. This, combined with massive investments in navy and other things, suggests that 30 years from now, the situation may be very different.

By 2050, the population of China is expected to go down by 100 million, halving by 2100. America will continue growing until 2080. This fall will also combine with older people on general, reducing military and working age populations and putting greater strain on them to take care of the old. This leads to them not having time to make children, which continues the cycle. China is only becoming weaker and weaker, and it’s likely that the CCP could very well collapse before this. China is not going to more powerful than the US in 2050, and it likely won’t ever reach its place as an enemy and authoritarian state (this whole decline is man made, by the CCP.)

Donk2.0 wrote:

Security guarantees go a LONG way. As I said, a dealbreaker for many countries.

True, but that same military also ruined the Middle East and the US in the Middle East. That powerful military damaged relations with Latin America as well. Not exactly being used a force for good yet, considering many of the actions and mistakes it has seen. But maybe if it sticks to its principles, then we can expect the military to be a positive force for US diplomacy.

I will answer this later. Pls remind me.

Carking the 6th wrote:

I think I sound like a tankie