Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "What Will $716 Billion Buy You? US Defense Budget 2019" video.

Mark Prothro The confidence is because China is investing enormous amounts into Africa and its Belt and Road initiative. The United States has no equivalent program and poor, largely legacy infrastructure. China also has over 3 times the population and domestically cheap labor. In addition to a virtual monopoly on the rare earth minerals needed to produce the computer you're reading this on right now.
19
Mark Prothro Not nearly as much as you'd need to meet even domestic demand, though. California has a sizeable amount, but China, by fortune of geography (which— fun fact— is the main reason the United States is successful and even rose to prominence to begin with), has most of the world's existing reserves. Note I said reserves, not output. China dominates both anyway. It simply has the most. More than the entire Untied States' by a factor of over 30. Sorry. California's not a reasonable option anyway, are you really going to tear down billions worth of development just to pollute the area and stick it to the Reds? California says no. And it's an eight of your entire economy. Not worth it. Wyoming has some promise, but again, it's a miniscule fraction of the total global reserve. Even if all of Shenzen's factories just disappeared tomorrow, if Americans want to keep using their fancy gadgets, they will still depend on China, indefinitely.
5
Mark Prothro Oh, and those final two points: Chinese companies are increasingly investing in and saturating the Indian market, as India is slated to surpass China in population within the next 20 years. Their labor is also quite cheap. China's companies will have first pick to an enormous market, along with exclusive contracts for its natural resources. The same goes with Africa. Exclusive mining rights in sub-Saharan countries by China and Russia will cement their economic growth in the next 50 years, provided they can stay afloat themselves. And again, the infrastructure comes with unspoken conditions for mutual development projects and first pick to the African market. The world's population is slated to taper out at around 12 billion by 2100. Interestingly, most wealthy countries will see their populations plummet. The only reason the net population doesn't fall, is because Africa is set to explode in population. If you don't get it, it's fine. Remember Clinton talking about China's inevitable collapse under the pressure of the Internet's propagation of free speech? Funny, that.
4
Mark Prothro Sure, it's speculation. What's your point? I'm trying to urge you not to underestimate China. America has consistently gotten it wrong for 40 years, it seems you're no different.
3
Mark Prothro Yes, I saw the first result on Google, too. Try harder. The Department of Energy estimates China's total reserves at 1/2 the total global supply. I don't, but seeing as the only reserve in CA is firmly in SoCal's reach, I don't see them able to do any development anytime soon. China is lightyears ahead in refinement, and you're right- the U.S. is trying dirty refinery in Africa. It'll take years, but by then Trump will be out of office. And I personally don't see it going as well as Fox would have you believe. Soy and corn farmers are getting frustrated, because Trump doesn't seem to understand that a tariff on Chinese tech hurts consumers, and their tariff on soy hurts his political base.
2
@thesirmaddog8209 If you want to play with semantics, then sure. I personally think that nuclear weapons in general, and not the U.S., are responsible for the lack of officially declared wars. Too much is at stake.
1
@thesirmaddog8209 If that's truly the case in your opinion, then by the same logic, the Revolutionary War never happened. America did not have an army large enough to actually fight the British, so they heavily relied on knowledge of their land and guerrilla tactics, while the British insisted on "Classical warfare" (at the time, three rows of volleys, with trumpets and fanfare to boot. Very gentlemanly). Sound familiar? You're making an arbitrary distinction between insurgents/militants and armies. In an environment like Afghanistan, the style of fighting would be the same either way. The Afghan army isn't going to stroll up with their skinniest weapons just because their "reputation" is on the line. A war of attrition is much better for them, as evidenced by the U.S.'s failure to secure or even finish building the Ring Road, or root out the Taliban. Not to mention many Pashtuns already have joined, making them a semi-Afghan fighting force.
1
@thesirmaddog8209 Lmao, are you fucking serious? https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2016/08/afghanistan-controls-160823083528213.html They're still there. Just because they don't control the government, doesn't mean they're not lurking in the deserts, ready to spring back up whenever the U.S. leaves.
1