Do you see china as "the enemy"?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
My rankings were based on concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1%.

IIRC

China - 46%
USA - 38%

I cannot for the life of me find this info right now. So feel free to be unconvinced.

But I found it fascinating that the "communist" and "capitalist" models resulted in similar concentration (or condensation) of wealth.

The concentration of wealth at the top in China may simply reflect a developing economy. It would seem reasonable to assume that when a country moves from a command economy toward more of a market economy, the rich will benefit the most, while a large section of the population will remain poor because the economic transformation has not yet reached them.

[mindseye]

Mad Viking, I agree with much of what you said. A couple of nits:

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Your comments are fair, but your conclusions seem overly pessimistic.

I think I'm more of a "middle-roader", perhaps even "cautiously optimistic". The true pessimists see imminent collapse, usually due to an unsustainable economic model aggravated by environmental issues, and growing political difficulties (there were about 74,000 protests last year, by the the government's count - some of these were armed local uprisings).

In matters like these I figure the most mundane explanation is often the most realistic, which is why, if I was forced to guess, I would rank the possible outcomes for the next 50-75 years or so:

- economically and socially similar to Brazil (possible, maybe likely)
- become a Great Power (possible, maybe likely)
- gradual transformation into more benign form of gov't (possible, a little more likely than not)
- some sort of new/different model of semi-developed nation (possible)
- period of political and/or economic chaos (possible, somewhat unlikely)
- period of major political chaos or break-up (e.g. lose Xinjiang) (possible, rather unlikely)
- become a Superpower (possible, rather unlikely)
- major failure of economy (possible, rather unlikely)
- total collapse of economy (possible, unlikely)

Just my current opinion - I'm very wary of anyone who makes confident predictions about China.

On one hand you say it is bad for China that the workers are poor, and then you say it is bad for China that the workers are getting paid increases. It can't be both!

Well, maybe the problem is the word "China". If wages go up, that's good for Chinese factory workers (at least in the short term), but bad for Chinese consumers and factory owners. Is that good or bad for "China"?

[Philosophiser]

China is atheistic, tends toward totalitarian brutality, and is definitely a threat to American sovereignty. It must be addressed.

[The Mad Viking]

mindseye-

Certainly I didn't mean to accuse you of being overly pessimistic. Clearly you are not. I just thought the interpretations of the evidence fell in the "pessimistic".

To clarify, it seemed to me that the increase in worker's wages was a bad sign for the Chinese economy, and also, that the workers poverty was a bad sign for the Chinese economy.

This, of course, is a sign that there are a lot of bad predictions about the Chinese economy.

On one hand, the Brazil model would seem to fit. Populous country, not without resouces, centrally planned economy with lots of government ownership of major internationally operating corporations.

But to me, the differences are more important.

To state the obvious, China has a very different culture. They have a great deal of confidence. For a long time, they turned their back to the world, to progress, largely by choice. No longer.

Brazil is a new world nation lacking much of the cultural and historical strength of China.

China has a far more diverse economy. They add more value to the things they produce, and sell far more consumer goods. 22% of their workforce is employed in industry, and only 29% in services. In Brazil, it is 14% industry, and 66% services. China's agriculture is much more labour intensive, but this works as a social safety net, and provides the constant source for workforce growth.

China has very modest population growth, Brazil's is high. Yes China's GDP growth is like 9% compared to Brazil's 5%.

China has $233B in debt. They have $600B in reserves. Brazil has almost the same debt: $220 for 1/6th the population. But only $53B in reserves.

China is in many ways ahead of Brazil, so I don't see Brazil as a model for China.

[mindseye]

Mad Viking,

I agree that Brazil is a very different country than China. When I spoke of "becoming another Brazil" I was really thinking primarily in terms of distribution of wealth, i.e. it may be difficult if not impossible for China to develop a huge middle class like Japan or many western nations, at least anytime soon.

Now I have to correct something I said earlier in this thread. I wrote:

I think one big problem with this argument is the role in China's development played by investment from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and overseas Chinese (huge!), whose motivations included a strong sense of pride in assisting in the mainland's development. They may be reluctant to re-locate operations unless the labor cost differences become very significant, so China's factory wages may have significant room for improving before endangering the economic miracle.

I just read (lost the cite!) that investment from Taiwan was down 18% so far this year, and that Japan's investment levels were decreasing as well. So part of this process may already be under way to a degree I didn't realize.

I think the fiures were from an article in the South China Morning Post on the predicament of China's maufacturers, which discussed how they are being increasingly squeezed on one side by rising labor costs and the rising cost of many resources (created in part by China's growing consumption of them), and on the other by ceaseless demands for lower prices from volume buyers like Walmart. At the same time they are confronting new competition in other low-priced labor markets like Vietnam (which is getting a lot of attention from the China-watching community).

Anyway, good example of why I avoid confident China predictions. Things change so quickly, the indicators are so difficult to read, statistics so unreliable, the basic local rules so different ... might as well use a dowsing rod.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi

That's ok, I don't believe that you've studied political science to make a claim that culture doesn't influence politics and that politics are solely run by simple socio-economic conditions. If that was the case, any moron could be a political scientist because it would be so easy to understand, follow, and predict. Frankly, I don't care what you're personal, and what looks to be uneducated, beliefs are. If you think that political theory is that simple, fine. But don't enter in a discussion of something that you "think" is a certain way. Why? Look below.

Maybe you fail to undertsand the notion behind political "science"-the study of the use of political power. That assumes a universality in the use of power ocver which culture is irrelevant, nothing but a superstructure, which is why most POlitical scientists can state there are universal rules of behavior between states.

Soft answer: History is an excellent factor to predict China, because it has been so accurate in the past. To deny it now, would just be foolish. This doesn't mean that it is inevitable, but a good measure of what to expect. There's more to this, but it's unnecessary here.

History is a end outcome of specific conditions at the time. It only tells us anything when we are dealing with universal constants. Conditions in China have changed. Therefore, outcomes will be different. That seems simple enough to grasp.

Soft answer: Why wouldn't they, if the central government was no longer capable of supporting them or was vulnerable to rebellion? They have direct access to the army or at least a part of it. However, it would be more likely that should the CCP collapse or lose power, local leaders would woo generals for some control of the army to suport and defend their own juristictions. What they do from their depends on how much power they have accumulated. .

That is bull. Pure and simple.
1. Modern industrial militaries simply do not work that way. You again utterly ignore the simple basic procurement issues that would make such and outcome ridiculous. Far more likely is a military takeover, with the General BECOMING the power. Local governors have no power, and if the central government could not upkeep the military, smaller entities would certainly not be able to do so themselves. Yeah, the governonr of some dumpy area will be able to keep the local air force fighters and IRBM's fueled...give me a break.
2. There would be huge presure for there to be someone taking over form the central government. The falls of the SU is a great example- when the party fell, the vaccum of power was short lived in most places-political instability continued, but there was no vaccumm. China, unlike the USSR though, is not the same kind of multiethnic empire and again, minor nationalities would hardly be able to break through.

Hard answer: Of course, this has nothing to do with modernization or industrialization. We could ask these questions at the height of any past dynasty in China and look what happened to them. So this is a pointless question.

No you could njot, because no previous Chinese leadership could beam their images instantaniously accross the state, none of them could gaze down from outer space, none of them had nuclear weapons, or could drop bombs from 30,000 feet, or move 100,000 men 2000 miles in a week. Those very simple realities mean that just because some emperor before couldn't has 0 bearing on today.

Soft answer: Because they know their place on the pecking order. If the government collapses they will follow the closest semblence of power in their immediate vicinity. They will fear the local power much more than a remote power that they are uncertain can protect them. The soldiers are guaranteed to follow their leaders. Despite it's appearance of collective thought, China is dependent on leaders.

Hard answer: Again nothing to do with industrialization and modernization. So why ask?

Soft answer: Focus. We're talking about the collapse of the government, not a revolt against it at the height of its power. An attack on the government in the form of civil war will only occur if the attacking side believes it would win. The soldiers will follow the commander, if they believe he is a good leader or powerful leader. Also see above.

Hard answer: But again, nothing to do with industrialization and modernization. At anytime, soldiers would have to ask themselves whether to follow their commanders or rebel against them. This is a waste of time.

You obviously are failing miserably to get the point. Modern militaries are burocracies, and a power nexus within the state. The military will have its own instrests as an INSTITUTION, not just a collection of commanders and soldiers. And if a power vaccuum in the center does open, why should the sole holder of the monopoly of violence allow its influence to wane by disentigration?

Soft answer: Collapse of central power means collapse of bureaucracy. Of course, those resources would still have to be somewhere, but not necessarily in the hands of the weaken central government, which is probably weaken because it lost them.

Hard answer: This also has nothing to do with modernization and industrialization. "An army moves on its stomach." Throughout history their had to be sources to provide for the army. Just because the weaponss may be different, doesn't mean that modernization and industrialization change this fact. At least, you've done nothing to demonstrate this. :yawn:

And again, "history mean ****". An army in 1000 ad has little if anything in common with one today. And yes, the very fact that modern armies ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT is a direct result of the vast socioeconomic changes of industralization. A state with 40% urbanization works differently from one at 2% urbanization.

It boggles my mind that you can actually believe that some semi-feudal agrarian state functions the same as some modern urbanizing, industrializing state.

How? None of the questions you've just asked me have anything to do with modernization and industrialization. Frankly, I felt like I was wasting my time answering them, because they have nothing to do with the discussion. You just look like someone who doesn't understand what we are talking about.

Ok. THIS IS ABSURD!

I asked one multiple question- what are you thinking when you expect a modern military to behave like some army of horsemen. Its absurd. And because that modern military is the direct result of China being a modern industrial state, it has everything to do with industrialization and modernization.

Yes, it's unlikely that their will be a revolt at this time. The CCP has everything it needs to control the country. If it didn't, it would risk a new party trying to move in that had the missing component. That has nothing do to with industrialization and modernization. All I've been doing is showing that if the central power is weak enough to be conquered internally, it is very possible that it will be given how things worked and still work in China.

What being modern has to do with it, well, you've never answered that, have you? I don't know why your still clinging to this, because it has nothing to do with anything we've been discussing lately.

First, "still work in China" is crap. This is your "historically based" opinion. Second, the fact that CCP has tools for copntrol that no regime in China has ever had before is exactly what modernization is all about. And it has everything to do with the discussion, because you persists in basing your 'arguement" on "this is how China is, cause I know Chinese history, cause China will inevitably do the same that it did 3000 years ago, because this is China." That is not an arguement, that is stating an opinion. You have not professed a SINGLE arguement as to why culture , Chinese or otherwise, will affect the siaution more than the vast change of socio-economic realities.

Actually, it happened in the late 1940s again when the KMT lost to the CCP because they didn't have a strong central power.

So, um, newflash.

:LOL:

Yes, the KMT lost control, and in just 4 years the CCP took over the entire country and set up a vast new direct government. Where was the vast collapse of the country? The warlords were minimal, and it was a one on one fight, not a collapse of total control. Where the KMT lost power, the CCP took power. NO vaccum of power. And it took only 4 years after the Japanese left for it to be over, with near total victory for the Communists.

I find it so funny that you consider a clear and obvious example of things not behaving as you claim they will as an example in your favor.

As for your argument. Well, you don't have one. All you've said is that modernization and industrialization make a government invulnerable to internal revolt. But you've said nothing to support this, so I can't even say it's your argument.

NO YOU FOOL! Jesus,christ....

My arguement is simple- I state it over and over again- modernization means that China won;t collapse into some byzantine civil war. I already stated that I saw the CCP falling, you know, just like the CCP in the USSR. Maybe you are getting dementia in old age?

So no, the army won't turn into a bunch of warlords backing local governors. Saying that is highly unlikely is not the same as saying there can't be a change of power at the center. What it means is that once one central power falls, the people who come next will wuickly seize total power and there will be no collapse into total chaos.

[Barnabas]

Arent the exports of india like ridiculously low for such a big country?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap



Maybe you fail to undertsand the notion behind political "science"-the study of the use of political power. That assumes a universality in the use of power ocver which culture is irrelevant, nothing but a superstructure, which is why most POlitical scientists can state there are universal rules of behavior between states.

But culture still influences politics. That's why not every country behaves the same. China may follow some universal rules, but a good political scientist can recognize where it does and where it doesn't.

History is a end outcome of specific conditions at the time. It only tells us anything when we are dealing with universal constants. Conditions in China have changed. Therefore, outcomes will be different. That seems simple enough to grasp.

According to your logic, history is not worth studying, because it will never tell us anything since we are never dealing with universal constants when discussing the history of single region. However, we can show how somethings are the same and may lead to the same result as in the past. What I've pointed out are constants that still remain in China. Constants that you seem to be unaware of.

That is bull. Pure and simple.
1. Modern industrial militaries simply do not work that way.

How? If there is no central power, the highest ranking military officers may be in position to make a claim for that power. How does modernization stop this.

You again utterly ignore the simple basic procurement issues that would make such and outcome ridiculous.

But I covered this later when you asked specifically about it. How was it ignored?

Far more likely is a military takeover, with the General BECOMING the power. Local governors have no power, and if the central government could not upkeep the military, smaller entities would certainly not be able to do so themselves. Yeah, the governonr of some dumpy area will be able to keep the local air force fighters and IRBM's fueled...give me a break.

Yes, I allowed for that. I also state that in more remote areas local governors may have enough influence to control their own territory. His first moves once securing his power would be to get those provisions, if he didn't have access to them already. Of course, as I said before, the new central power would likely lay waste to these plans once it is capable of it. Your belief that local governors have no influence in the local military is wrong. Even local business have some influence.

2. There would be huge presure for there to be someone taking over form the central government. The falls of the SU is a great example- when the party fell, the vaccum of power was short lived in most places-political instability continued, but there was no vaccumm. China, unlike the USSR though, is not the same kind of multiethnic empire and again, minor nationalities would hardly be able to break through.

The SU's situation was more of a transfer of power that made it weaker internally. It's possible that CCP could fall in a similar fashion. It's also possible that it could fall in a way that left enough of a vacuum, however long or short, to cause some groups to struggle for power. Given the way politics actually works in China, it's quite possible for that to occur.

However, it seems here that you are relying on the history of another country to predict the outcomes of China.

No you could njot, because no previous Chinese leadership could beam their images instantaniously accross the state, none of them could gaze down from outer space, none of them had nuclear weapons, or could drop bombs from 30,000 feet, or move 100,000 men 2000 miles in a week. Those very simple realities mean that just because some emperor before couldn't has 0 bearing on today.

But this argument requires that the central government not collapse. My point is that if it does, these things may not be available, so modernity and industrialization have little to do with it. They may help the CCP stay in power, but they're not so useful to it once it has lost that power.

Now this may be the biggest problem. You are completely ignorant of China. You just don't see how things really work there. You've developed this fantasy of it and are trying to argue its reality based on no evidence. That's why your argument here is reduced to: You don't know enough to discuss it.

You obviously are failing miserably to get the point. Modern militaries are burocracies, and a power nexus within the state. The military will have its own instrests as an INSTITUTION, not just a collection of commanders and soldiers. And if a power vaccuum in the center does open, why should the sole holder of the monopoly of violence allow its influence to wane by disentigration?

The militaries of China have always been bureaucracies. That's part of the problem. They are divided into so many departments and groups that no single person can keep track of them all. Hence the continued reliance on local officials to control provinces and towns and the like. That's just how it is in China. The military there may have some resemblence to an institution, but one that is very divided. That's why local officials can call upon the local military to suppress rebellions without the ok from the central government. This is good for the CCP in as long as they can control those local governments and the local military through the heirarchy. Once the top of that heirarchy collapses. . .

Anyway, this is just a diversion from your original question about why soldiers would follow their commanders, if the CCP collapsed. You've failed to show how modernity and industrialization would prevent this.

And again, "history mean ****". An army in 1000 ad has little if anything in common with one today. And yes, the very fact that modern armies ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT is a direct result of the vast socioeconomic changes of industralization. A state with 40% urbanization works differently from one at 2% urbanization.

I fail to see how any of this addresses the first point, so I assume you concede that.

I'm not arguing history at all in the second point. I pointed out some thing in the military that is not FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. You say it is, but you've failed again to prove it. You make these claims, but you don't prove them.

It boggles my mind that you can actually believe that some semi-feudal agrarian state functions the same as some modern urbanizing, industrializing state.

But I never said they were the exact same. You're twisting my words. I pointed out one instance where they share similarities.

Ok. THIS IS ABSURD!

I asked one multiple question- what are you thinking when you expect a modern military to behave like some army of horsemen. Its absurd. And because that modern military is the direct result of China being a modern industrial state, it has everything to do with industrialization and modernization.

No, you asked several questions, which I addressed as they were written. My argument is that those questions are irrelevent to modernization and industrialization because they could be asked of any period when the central power collapses. I've never claimed that a modern military is the exact same as an army of horsemen. But I do say that there are some similarities that remain. I suppose they are universal constants in regard to the military.

First, "still work in China" is crap. This is your "historically based" opinion.

No, all I've been doing is showing that if the central power is weak enough to be conquered internally, it is very possible that it will be given how things worked and still work in China. I'm claiming that there is a historical constant in China that still exists today and one can make a reasonable prediction from it. That prediction could turn out to be wrong, but it doesn't alter its validity as a prediction.

Second, the fact that CCP has tools for copntrol that no regime in China has ever had before is exactly what modernization is all about. And it has everything to do with the discussion, because you persists in basing your 'arguement" on "this is how China is, cause I know Chinese history, cause China will inevitably do the same that it did 3000 years ago, because this is China." That is not an arguement, that is stating an opinion. You have not professed a SINGLE arguement as to why culture , Chinese or otherwise, will affect the siaution more than the vast change of socio-economic realities.

Here you are twisting my words (even putting quote on things I never said. That's just a blatant lie! ). You are the only one on this forum who has made a claim about China's inevitability. Please don't project your failings onto me. I've specifically stayed in the realm of possibility. All my argument are based on what could happen in given situations. Frankly, I'm getting tired of your underhanded tactics to try to salvage yourself from a losing argument.

My argument in regards to Chinese history is that it can be used a predictor of what could happen in China given certain scenarios. The likelihood of the scenarios is debatable as is the likelihood of the results of them (condition for an argument, if you need an explanation). If I say that China has historically followed a dynastic cycle, I am using to point out that it is possible that it could continue to do so based on similar trends that still exist. Not that it is inevitable. That's your famous flaw, not mine. Quit trying to pass it on to me.

:LOL:

Yes, the KMT lost control, and in just 4 years the CCP took over the entire country and set up a vast new direct government. Where was the vast collapse of the country? The warlords were minimal, and it was a one on one fight, not a collapse of total control. Where the KMT lost power, the CCP took power. NO vaccum of power. And it took only 4 years after the Japanese left for it to be over, with near total victory for the Communists.

I find it so funny that you consider a clear and obvious example of things not behaving as you claim they will as an example in your favor.

See you don't understand what I'm saying because you're own words don't make sense. I admit, I didn't fully understand this either:

I find the notion that a modern military with a modern chain of command would "break up".

Well, newsflash- the last time that happened was 1912, and China then was an agrarian state with limited infrastructure.

Here you're claiming that China was modern-state then you immediately say its not. My only flaw was responding to this gibberish. For that I admit my mistake.

My arguement is simple- I state it over and over again- modernization means that China won;t collapse into some byzantine civil war. I already stated that I saw the CCP falling, you know, just like the CCP in the USSR. Maybe you are getting dementia in old age?

That's the problem. A lot (nearly all) of your arguments lately are based solely on the party not collapsing:

Just from your questions:

1. Generals won't make a bid for power: Not unless the CCP collapses. Then someone has to make a play for power. There's a good chance it would be them since they have control over the military that the collapsed government no longer does. Since General A might not support General B, there is a possibility of conflict.

2. Junior officer corp won't follow generals: Without the CCP, who are they going to follow. I've already explained why they won't break off. If the CCP doesn't collapse, then yes, they won't follow generals rebelling.

3. Same as the last one

4. Army can't function without the CCP: This is a weird one. The army can still function without the CCP. The provisions still exist even if the CCP collapses. They just will come from a different source. Collapse doesn't mean the end of the army. The same army you claim is so modernized that it will prevent other powers from appearing, if the CCP does collapse.

The point is, you're claiming that the modern capabilities of the CCP are holding the country together. But as soon as the government collapses, those capabilities may not be available. Hence you're argument is dependent on the CCP not collapsing. You've offered nothing else to support your argument that China can not fall into civil war or have some sort of internal conflicts (however, now your adding 'byzantine' to try to mitigate your mistake there). That's why it's so ridiculous.

So no, the army won't turn into a bunch of warlords backing local governors. Saying that is highly unlikely is not the same as saying there can't be a change of power at the center. What it means is that once one central power falls, the people who come next will wuickly seize total power and there will be no collapse into total chaos.

All I'm saying is that during that time, some groups could try to make a play for their own place of power. I'm not saying that it would happen for certain. It would depend on how the central power collapsed. Also, even if they did, if someone managed to get enough control of the central power, he could squash these little rebellions with ease (gee, didn't I say this several times already).

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Arent the exports of india like ridiculously low for such a big country?

Yeah, and they've got a sizable trade deficit while they're at it but they're moving in the right direction, especially if you count outsourcing and whatnot. It's going to take a loooooooong time for India to catch up, but I'm fairly confident that they will do so eventually.

[lord of the mark]

can we review the Soviet situation? IIRC, Gorbachev was head of the USSR, Yeltsin was President of Russia and controlled the Russian state apparatus. The coup was led by the power ministers, Defense, Interior, etc. Gorby was under house arrest but Yeltsin stood in Moscow, at the "White House" with the people around him. The coup plotters directed the military to take Moscow, while the presidents of the other republics waited to see how things would fall. As it happened one of the key divisions near Moscow refused to move on the cities, the troops in Moscow refused to fire on the crowd. One of the leaders of the coup then got drunk, and the rest basically gave up. So the question of whether the Soviet military would stay united, how it would deal with procurement if it didnt, was never actually tested.

One forgets that in premodern times quick successes or failure of coups were quite common = collapses were the exception in most states. Its hard to say we have enough of a database to say, empirically, that collapses in modern states are impossible.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Bosh


Yeah, and they've got a sizable trade deficit while they're at it but they're moving in the right direction, especially if you count outsourcing and whatnot. It's going to take a loooooooong time for India to catch up, but I'm fairly confident that they will do so eventually.

How do they handle this deficit?

do they get so many dollars in foreign investment and tourism?

they dont seem to be very indebted and the (rupee?) doesnt strike me as an unstable currency-

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
can we review the Soviet situation? IIRC, Gorbachev was head of the USSR, Yeltsin was President of Russia and controlled the Russian state apparatus. The coup was led by the power ministers, Defense, Interior, etc. Gorby was under house arrest but Yeltsin stood in Moscow, at the "White House" with the people around him. The coup plotters directed the military to take Moscow, while the presidents of the other republics waited to see how things would fall. As it happened one of the key divisions near Moscow refused to move on the cities, the troops in Moscow refused to fire on the crowd. One of the leaders of the coup then got drunk, and the rest basically gave up. So the question of whether the Soviet military would stay united, how it would deal with procurement if it didnt, was never actually tested.

The government did not collapse immidiately after the coup-there were months between August and December. You can see that form the good ol' Calendar.

But look at what happened- politicians tried a coup without getting backing from the Army. That the Defense and Interior Ministers back it does not mean that the Chiefs of Staff do-the army was obviously very lackluster in its caryring out of orders.

And the fact that troops on the field and thier commanders did not act as the ministers wanted adds to my statement about junion officers- of course, dashi will claim that in China people know their place better.

One forgets that in premodern times quick successes or failure of coups were quite common = collapses were the exception in most states. Its hard to say we have enough of a database to say, empirically, that collapses in modern states are impossible.

One can explore the issue theoretically. or try. or they can spout stuff about "it alwasy happens, cause of their culture."

[Joseph]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
can we review the Soviet situation? IIRC, Gorbachev was head of the USSR, Yeltsin was President of Russia and controlled the Russian state apparatus. The coup was led by the power ministers, Defense, Interior, etc. Gorby was under house arrest but Yeltsin stood in Moscow, at the "White House" with the people around him. The coup plotters directed the military to take Moscow, while the presidents of the other republics waited to see how things would fall. As it happened one of the key divisions near Moscow refused to move on the cities, the troops in Moscow refused to fire on the crowd. One of the leaders of the coup then got drunk, and the rest basically gave up. So the question of whether the Soviet military would stay united, how it would deal with procurement if it didnt, was never actually tested.

One forgets that in premodern times quick successes or failure of coups were quite common = collapses were the exception in most states. Its hard to say we have enough of a database to say, empirically, that collapses in modern states are impossible.

This was going through my mind and you had already printed it, good job. Your memory is correct.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Philosophiser
China is atheistic, tends toward totalitarian brutality, and is definitely a threat to American sovereignty. It must be addressed.

I don't normally respond to cranks but I'll give in on this one. How do you figure China is a threat to American sovereignty?

[GePap]

Why is everyone feeding that troll? Jesus, I guess people here like to waste bandwidth.