Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

spottybrowncow wrote: Mon Jun 30, 2025 9:21 pm I can't help but think that the average "Russian on the street" feels that he has much more in common with the West than with China. Ditto the average "Indian on the street." And even the average "Iranian on the street." Who knows what that's worth, but it's got to be worth something.

Remember John saying a very many times that the will of the people will eventually become the policy of the government?

I can't help but think that the average "Russian on the street" feels that he has much more in common with the West than with China. Ditto the average "Indian on the street." And even the average "Iranian on the street." Who knows what that's worth, but it's got to be worth something.

Where I disagree with Navigator is my uncertainty about how closely these nations are collaborating. They might have a common goal, but there's a lot of bad blood between them, and their opposition to us is about the only thing they have in common. There's also India, a nation Russia has been close to historically, and China's enemy.

Weapons are a tradable commodity and they're being traded. We do it too. It doesn't necessarily buy influence more than the ability supply and resupply armaments. But that ability in and of itself doe buy influence. It also gets information which is valuable to everyone who's using those systems. But fundamentally, it's not like they necessarily trust each other or are collaborating on a deeper level. They just have a shared common adversary. Probably why having fewer such adversaries is better for our position. I still think John's original analysis or Russia and Iran being on "team West" is fundamentally correct. And it also doesn't mean that we'll have any special feelings of comraderie besides fighting a common adversary.

thinker wrote: Sun Jun 29, 2025 9:28 pm Hello gents, I have a question for the guys that have military experience. I have seen videos of Iran's hypersonic missiles hitting Tel Aviv, I believe both China and Russia also have hypersonic missiles in their arsenals. I believe we are working on this tech but are net yet to the point where we would be able to use it. From what I have seen these things are unstoppable, Israel doesn't have an answer for them, do we (US) have anything that could stop them?

I've seen lots of different analysis but it seems to boil down to the simple matter of quantity/quality of missiles and drones vs quantity of systems capable of stopping the missiles. It seems that there's lots more missiles/drones available to all the actors vs air defense and attrition of both doesn't favor those who rely on air defense. But we're currently in the fog of war and available information is murky. There's plenty of videos showing Israel getting pounded, they've blocked all on the ground reporting of missile strikes and that's a tell. Apparently many people believe the current ceasefire is only to re-equip the air defense and missile stockpile. It's probably a strategic blunder to continue using up our stockpile of limited air defense because they take a long time to manufacture.
A three theater war would be an enormous challenge in the best of times but it's well known we've actually fallen behind in some critical areas related to this. We're seeing a pushback on 2 fronts that's been showing this and it's unfortunate for our position, considering the arsenal the PRC has amassed. They're getting real time data and weapons testing of our best systems and will probably make adjustments for making them better. And they're probably just watching us attrit our arsenal with a long lag time for manufacture.

Seems like they might be stoppable with a directed energy weapon, e.g., laser, etc.

Hello gents, I have a question for the guys that have military experience. I have seen videos of Iran's hypersonic missiles hitting Tel Aviv, I believe both China and Russia also have hypersonic missiles in their arsenals. I believe we are working on this tech but are net yet to the point where we would be able to use it. From what I have seen these things are unstoppable, Israel doesn't have an answer for them, do we (US) have anything that could stop them?

When it comes to Russia and China being allies, it's important to remember that in the early days of the Second World War, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union collaborated with one another. Until June 22, 1941, the USSR butchered just as many people and according to some estimates, more.

The Soviets helped build the military Hitler turned on them, and I suspect Putin's making the same mistake. China's vulnerable to a blockade and their navy doesn't have the strength to challenge us, let alone adding Japan, South Korea, and others to the mix. Russia's invasion of Ukraine raises a lot of questions as to how impressive Chinese hardware really is. If it was as capable as they claimed, I suspect they'd have already launched their attack.

I fear we're going to make the same mistake as our ancestors. Even in 1939, Britain and France could have stopped Hitler without massive loss of life. When invading Poland, he left their western border almost undefended. His generals thought he'd lost his mind, but Hitler gambled that Britain and France wouldn't do anything substantial to stop him. He was right. Both nations were desperate to avoid another war, leading to far greater loss of life through their inaction. Think about today; after Afghanistan and especially Iraq, there's no attitude for more overseas adventures. Far as most people are concerned, let the world deal with its own problems.

Such an attitude is understandable, but it's shortsighted. We can't ignore the rest of the world, however tempting it might be.

China might want to have all their preparations ready, but no plan survives contact with the enemy. Since Covid, China is no longer seen as a rival: they're an enemy, to both parties. The more complicated the plan, the more that can go wrong, and while time is on their side in certain aspects, they've got massive problems of their own. The days of 10% growth are over, even taking their figures at face value.

Where I disagree with Navigator is my uncertainty about how closely these nations are collaborating. They might have a common goal, but there's a lot of bad blood between them, and their opposition to us is about the only thing they have in common. There's also India, a nation Russia has been close to historically, and China's enemy.

Adding to Navigator's point, Iran's nuclear program has been set back. Precisely how much, we don't know, but I suspect Iran knows their position is fragile. All the stories about their formidable defenses has proven to be a load of crap. Assad has fallen, Hezbollah has been defanged, Hamas is devastated, and the Houthis are weakened. Life hasn't been kind to them over the last year, and I think it's telling that even what condemnations have existed are half-hearted. There hasn't even been much of a "rally around the flag" effect at home. Even the Iranians are sick of their leaders.

It's one of the few areas where I agree with Trump.

Their fall might seem impossible, but Assad's rule looked secure until it suddenly wasn't. He fell in three weeks, now residing in Moscow, and could be handed over if Putin decides he's outlived his usefulness.

America's always had an isolationist streak. Our role as the world's policeman has never been without controversy, even when the Truman Doctrine was first conceived. WWII ended 80 years ago, and almost no one else remembers the terrible events that led up to it, so I'm not surprised that we're returning to seeing events as "someone else's problem." While we might have won in Iraq in a military sense, the victory tastes like ashes, and it's done a lot of damage to our reputation worldwide.

Navigator wrote: Thu Jun 26, 2025 4:55 pm I am rather concerned with the Isolationist tendencies of many conservatives, esp in regards to Ukraine and Iran.

I believe that most conservatives, that have an isolationist viewpoint, narrows down their framework towards an internal nationalist argument that the United States is not a more prosperous country now than when it was in the 1950s-1960s. And thus, the questioning of whether it is worth being involved in external entanglements vs spending that money to rebuild the nation from within. To keep their logical conclusions simple, they most likely don't consider the geopolitical ramifications of if the US did take a non-involvement foreign policy.

This isn't finger pointing at conservative isolationist and blaming them for not seeing the bigger picture, it's just pointing out a blind spot in their framework that they may not be considering. I would probably consider myself a conservative isolationist, which is why I think I can somewhat speak on that behalf. The philosophical belief of "live and let live" is great, until just as (paraphrasing) Navigator said "the wolves are knocking at the door".

I am rather concerned with the Isolationist tendencies of many conservatives, esp in regards to Ukraine and Iran.

I get it that the US has gotten involved in many needless conflicts, such as Vietnam trying to re-unify itself, and of course the Iraq and Afghanistan messes.

Vietnam did itself no favors by trying to unify under a communist banner, causing the US to be very suspect, given what had happened in Korea - a war that HAD to be fought. Most military experts, Eisenhower and Ridgeway specifically, knew that Vietnam was a lost cause and that we should not go in there. JFK (later LBJ) were encouraged by Maxwell Taylor. Note that Taylor was commanding general of Dick Winters of "Band of Brothers" fame. Winters never had a single nice thing to say about Taylor, who was more politician than Soldier (and who somehow missed out on being surrounded with his unit during the Battle of the Bulge.

We had to go into Afghanistan due to them providing safe haven for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with in 1990. In both cases, the plan to turn both countries into "beacons of democracy" had ZERO chance of success.

But I have started rambling.

We ARE going to go to war with China-Russia-North Korea-Iran. Just like in the 1930s when we could tell that we would be going to war with Germany-Japan-Italy. Saying that Ukraine is not our fight is the same as telling the Chinese and the Ethiopians in the 30s, and then the Poles in 1939 that their wars were none of our business. They eventually became our business, when the strength of the adversaries had become MUCH greater.

Any damage that we can do to China-Russia-North Korea-Iran now will only benefit us in the future. Peace at "any cost" is not a good plan for the long term, as it only strengthens our adversaries.