• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

China threatens war, calling Trump's bluff?

Giz said:
The argument that trump is comparable to hitler is hysterical bed wetting, unworthy of adults, let alone "skeptics".

It also diminishes the horrors of hitler by comparing him to a bloviating corrupt narcissist. Perhaps berlusconi is a better comparison? (I'm not a fan of trump, but I'm even less a fan of people trying to diminish the horrors of actual fascism or of trying to undermine the peaceful transition of power - which is the prime differentiator between functional states and banana republics).
Click to expand...

I would agree.

Trump is dangerous and may get us into a war, but I don't think he's downright evil like Hitler.
 
Spindrift said:
I would agree.

Trump is dangerous and may get us into a war, but I don't think he's downright evil like Hitler.
Click to expand...
That is certainly true, but there is a point of comparison in that they both appeal to the same "constituency" in a similar period of economic austerity, both using scapegoating tactics to bamboozle and seduce the least thoughtful elements of the population.

But we have reason to hope that Trump won't use this political asset in the same monstrous way as Hitler did, or indeed that he wishes to do so.
 
In a way, I consider Trump more dangerous than Hitler due to the current geopolitical situation:
Trump's inexperience, ignorance and short attention span essentially nullifies the global power of the US: using basic social engineering on Trump (i.e. flattery), any aggressor can protect himself from US intervention.
And as both domestic and foreign policy experts have said: unpredictability is one of the worst attributes of a superpower.

In contrast, a Hitler would have a clear message and policies, and would be able to make his party and cabinet members follow them.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
In a way, I consider Trump more dangerous than Hitler due to the current geopolitical situation:
Trump's inexperience, ignorance and short attention span essentially nullifies the global power of the US: using basic social engineering on Trump (i.e. flattery), any aggressor can protect himself from US intervention.
And as both domestic and foreign policy experts have said: unpredictability is one of the worst attributes of a superpower.

In contrast, a Hitler would have a clear message and policies, and would be able to make his party and cabinet members follow them.
Click to expand...
These policies were evil, whether predictable or not. And Hitler prided himself on his unpredictability. The question is if Trump is as evil as Hitler. The answer is no. Is he as dangerous as Hitler? Who knows? The times are more dangerous. We have more devastating weapons, and mistakes are more costly.

Let us hope that Trump will receive competent advice - and that he will heed it.
 
Giz said:
The argument that trump is comparable to hitler is hysterical bed wetting, unworthy of adults, let alone "skeptics".
Click to expand...

It might be hyperbole, but it depends what parallels you draw. If something Trump does harkens back to Nazi Germany, it might be fair to point it out.
 
Craig B said:
These policies were evil, whether predictable or not. And Hitler prided himself on his unpredictability. The question is if Trump is as evil as Hitler. The answer is no. Is he as dangerous as Hitler? Who knows? The times are more dangerous. We have more devastating weapons, and mistakes are more costly.

Let us hope that Trump will receive competent advice - and that he will heed it.
Click to expand...

I agree - Trump is not Hitler, or like Hitler.

But Hitler didn't have ICBMs.
 
Come on, you guys should know your history better than this. The US made a deal with Von Braun that if he stopped bombing London, he could come to the US and bomb Mexico with V-2 rockets filled with Chimps just for fun.

After getting bored with that, he could build big boy rockets to carry nuclear warheads and later, people into space if he wanted. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Come on, you guys should know your history better than this. The US made a deal with Von Braun that if he stopped bombing London, he could come to the US and bomb Mexico with V-2 rockets filled with Chimps just for fun.
After getting bored with that, he could build big boy rockets to carry nuclear warheads and later, people into space if he wanted. Chris B.
Click to expand...

I assume you have a link for that?
 
theprestige said:
That doesn't seem very close at all. To me, close would be a working prototype and a successful test flight.
Click to expand...

That's a strange definition of "close" being that once you build an test it you aren't just close to having it, you actually have it.

Wikipedia gives us a test stand for firing a motor. Was the motor ever even built? Let alone test fired?
Click to expand...

They were about a half a year from completion at the end of WW2. It was like the Messerschmitt Me P.1101, had they been faster developing these things, or able to have held up the Allied advances for longer, the result of WW2 could have been quite different.
 
Nah, the Nazis weren't even close. The V-2 rockets we stole and brought back to New Mexico were largely failures. Many of their systems had to be redesigned and perfected before they were even close to being dependable. They did provide a start though as much of our newer rockets were based on similar design using the liquid fuel technology. Most of the gyroscopic guidance systems were trashed in lieu of US made units from Holloman AFB. I've not seen any reference to it but I do know they were made and tested there while the rockets were launched at White Sands missile range.
Chris B.
 
PhantomWolf said:
That's a strange definition of "close" being that once you build an test it you aren't just close to having it, you actually have it.



They were about a half a year from completion at the end of WW2. It was like the Messerschmitt Me P.1101, had they been faster developing these things, or able to have held up the Allied advances for longer, the result of WW2 could have been quite different.
Click to expand...

Nah, the "advanced but few in number and unreliable " thing wouldn't have won. Numbers, logistics and material would have told.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
And then what?
As I said, China has enough missiles and planes to sink a couple of US ships. Then you have dead Americans.
What in your mind should we do then?
Click to expand...

Then we would get the naval expansion trump wants.

Of course this is all predicated on the idea that the things trump says mean something, and the Trump Administration is fighting that idea hard. Look at how they say his statements about NATO don't actually mean anything.
 
Everything Trump ever says is a negotiation tactic.
Problem is: by know everyone knows it.

Trump calls NATO obsolete to make Europeans by US weapons.
He talks to Taiwan to get concessions out of China.

But what happens if they call his bluff?

I fear that Trump will react badly to not being taken seriously.
 
PhantomWolf said:
That doesn't answer this question....



If they believe that the US would not respond with launches against civilian populations over an attack against a valid military target, then such a strike is not insane at all.
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't get why he can not just nuke places of course he is going to target china as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom