IOW they are not foolishly bankrupting themselves whilst alienating the world (N. Africa, Somalia, Haiti, all of the Middle East, Russia, S. America, Mexico, etc.) engaging in futile skirmishes. Yet, right now, they have big lithium and other minerals and resource deals in S. Africa, Afghanistan, etc. and are trading Yuan for oil with Iraq, and engaging 50% of the world (by population) in a new petro-currency. The US dollar is in decline and becoming less relevant daily. Hmmm.... Seems like a good strategy for China, a bad one for the US.
The US debt is currently ~$32 trillion, and that's about $250,000 tax burden per American. Our population is 340M people. The US annual debt exceeds our gross domestic product, meaning we borrow 25% more annually than we bring in or produce. That is a unhealthy debt spiral and has been ongoing for decade(s) now. It will contribute to our demise.
China's debt is less than 1/2 ours, at ~$14 trillion. China's population is 1.4B or 4x the US population so all debts are distributed among 4x as many people. That means by comparison person-to-person China's adjusted debt vs. the US is closer to $3.8 trillion, or 1/8th of the United States. China's annual debt to GDP is a very healthy ~70% meaning they produce more than they borrow.
This is fundamental reading, and basic math and economics from reliable sources. Now, who is spreading false information?
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
https://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Debt/China.aspx
There's no evidence to support your conclusions whatsoever. Furthermore, as history shows, the US has failed to convincingly win any wars in 70 years, two of which were proxy wars against Communist China/Russia in SE Asia.
It's not always about who has the most sophisticated equipment, regardless. It's also about political will and military decision making - and the US has shown itself to be incapable of convincingly defeating adversaries and having staying power resolve. And it bears repeating, that most of our wars since 1950 were fought against enemies with minimal or no manufacturing base, no Navy, no Air Power, no satellites, no cyber warfare, poor communications, no independent energy production, little infrastructure, and importantly no real ability to strike our forces to cause mass casualties, nor any real ability to hit the US homeland.
Conversely, there is no doubt that China or Russia avoid these problems, can hit with heavy punches, can inflict mass casualties at will, can "turn off our lights," so to speak, shut down our global trade, shoot every airplane down, sink every trade vessel, and put the US back 100 years. Some of you seem willfully unable to appreciate these facts.
If you think this is my hair brained lunatic notion, think again. War simulations and EXPERTS agree the US would lose badly to China. Do any amount of reading on the topic. The United States military is in shambles, unable to make recruitment, and our branches are depleted and equipment outdated and insufficient to fight wars with superpowers right now.
Here's one article that supports this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/milita...-meet-2022-recruiting-goals-officia-rcna35078
"“This is the start of a long drought for military recruiting,” said Ret. Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank. He said the military has not had such a hard time signing recruits since 1973, the year the U.S. left Vietnam and the draft officially ended. Spoehr said he does not believe a revival of the draft is imminent, but “2022 is the year we question the sustainability of the all-volunteer force.”"
And another:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...uggles-to-keep-ships-up-to-spec-report-shows/
"US Navy's aging surface fleet struggles to keep ships up to specs."
Here's one article from the American Military News in 2021 stating as much.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...ith-china-air-forces-simulation-shows-report/
Last fall, the U.S. Air Force played out a war scenario with China, in which China begins its attack by deploying a biological weapon throughout the Indo-Pacific region. the
outcome for the U.S. was not a good one, a new report revealed this week.
“The definitive answer if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast,” Air Force Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, told Yahoo News. Many details of the war game remain classified and had not been made public until recently.
In the scenario, set a decade into the future, China uses a biological weapon attack that spreads between bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific and then, under the guise of a major military training exercise,
a Chinese invasion force is able to launch a speedy air and amphibious assault to take over Taiwan while targeting crippled U.S. warships and bases in the region with a hail of missile strikes.
Hinote described a trend between past conflict and this most recent scenario. “More than a decade ago, our war games indicated that
the Chinese were doing a good job of investing in military capabilities that would make our preferred model of expeditionary warfare, where we push forces forward and operate out of relatively safe bases and sanctuaries, increasingly difficult,” Hinote said. “At that point the trend in our war games was not just that we were losing, but we were losing faster.”
“After the 2018 war game I distinctly remember one of our gurus of war gaming standing in front of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, and telling them that we should never play this war game scenario [of a Chinese attack on Taiwan] again, because we know what is going to happen,” Hinote continued. “The definitive answer
if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast. In that case, an American president would likely be presented with almost a fait accompli.”
A fait accompli is a French term to describe a foregone conclusion, and is often used in U.S. military strategy
contexts to describe a scenario in which
an adversary of the U.S. is able to defeat a U.S. strategy before it can even be launched. In the example of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, U.S. military planners sometimes see China’s anti-access area denial strategy (A2/AD) as a fait accompli that allows China to make major territorial gains in the Indo-Pacific while blocking the U.S. from launching a counter-attack. A fait accompli presents a dilemma for the U.S. in whether to escalate conflict further or cede captured territories or objectives to China.
Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, has been
described as a fait accompli, as the annexation was accomplished before the Ukraine our other nations could intervene, and the prospect of retaking Crimea from Russia might then suggest open war with Russia.
Hinote’s comments about the Chinese war game come on the same week U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) commander Amdl. Philip Davidson said China might try and annex Taiwan within this decade and possibly within the next six years.
The use of war games has reportedly helped the U.S. better understand how the Chinese strategy in the Indo-Pacific would play out, but some defense analysts are still uncertain the U.S. is heading in a direction to counter China’s strategies.
“Whenever we war-gamed a Taiwan scenario over the years, our Blue Team [those playing the role of the U.S.] routinely got its *** handed to it, because in that scenario time is a precious commodity and it plays to China’s strength in terms of proximity and capabilities,” David Ochmanek, a senior RAND Corporation analyst and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development told Yahoo News. “That kind of lopsided defeat is a visceral experience for U.S. officers on the Blue Team, and as such the war games have been a great consciousness-raising device. But the U.S. military is still not keeping pace with Chinese advances. For that reason, I don’t think we’re much better off than a decade ago when we started taking this challenge more seriously.”
