So they begin to spend $Bn on more and more elaborate weapons systems to challenge a non-existent threat.
Our plan to destroy them is working, it got rid of the USSR, now China, just the USA to go.
Our plan to destroy them is working, it got rid of the USSR, now China, just the USA to go.
The threat that this is a change to is primarily the USA's F-22. Which definitely exists.
The US doesn't have any enemies within range of the Chinese jets and the US won't sell the F22 to anybody near china.
They are both techno-wank projects to make generals feel cool and to keep a few aerospace companies in business. It took a while but we have finally corrupted them to be just like us - and we did the chinese as well!
There are also battle groups with F-18s and AWACS planes and so on that are much nearer than the F22s in Hawaii.
The US has plenty of allies within range of the J-20, for example Taiwan, Korea, Japan. If China was to fight any of these countries, and the US got involved, air combat between the J-20 and F-22 is quite likely.
> They are both techno-wank projects to make generals feel cool and to keep a few aerospace companies in business.
There's an element of truth in that, yes. But it's been axiomatic in warfare from about 1940 onwards that air superiority is really important in a ground or naval campaign. (So they aren't just useless toys.)
This is changing as UAVs and smart missiles take over roles currently performed by manned aircraft.
Oh your holly god , I strongly advise you to go to China find out by your own eyes!
... "We're going to see rising tensions over shared water resources, including political disputes between farmers, between farmers and cities, and between human and ecological demands for water," says Peter Gleick, a water expert and president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. "And I believe more of these tensions will lead to violence"
In India: "We wake up every morning fighting over water," says Kamal Bhate, a local astrologer. In a nearby slum, a teenage boy was recently beaten to death for cutting in line.
"Peace between Pakistan and India may hinge as much on water as on Nuclear weapons for the counties must share the glacier-dependent Indus"
"The biggest question mark hangs over China, which controls the sources of the regions major rivers. It's damming of the Mekong has sparked anger downstream in Indochina. If Beijing follows through on tentative places to divert the Brahmaputra, it could provoke its rival, India, in the very region where the two countries fought a war in 1962."
Back to what you said, Desalination leaves behind a concentrated brine, which can technically harm the environment and the water supply itself. "Brine discharges are especially tricky to dispose of and they're also raising the sanity parts of the Persian Gulf. The saltier the water becomes, the more expensive it becomes to desalinate."
Desalination may be a billion dollars cheaper, but in the long term - it's not. (for now anyway). People who don't have a load of money will not be able to afford this water. What happens then?
Quotes from April 2010 National Geographic.
Individual people will fight over water. If you don't get enough to drink, you die. That's worth fighting over.
Governments fighting over water is stupid. Yes, I know governments being stupid is pretty commonplace, but it's our place to tell them they're stupid, not egg them on, like you and NatGeo are doing.
The issue is irrigation, not drinking water.
Food to feed a person requires farming. If the natural rainfall isn't enough, it requires irrigation too. Lots of farming is done with irrigation, as has been true for millenia.