It will fall into chaos as a result of renewed famine and poverty, resulting in military crackdowns.
There will be a military coup that displaces the current leadership, hopefully soon.
It will continue to remain a closed society, technologically dormant and otherwise insignificant.
The leadership will eventually make a misstep, forcing military action from the United States.
Look, if you quote with "", quote correctly.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
A correct quote would be "Western great powers".
Next, if unsure what a "Western great power" is, accept the help of an encyclopaedia, preferably one quite up-to-date.
This one might help, but other encyclopaedia exist as well, of course.
It's late and I'm not in the mood of creating another long list (about great powers acting secretly, cooperatively and not totally obviously in history).
From the link provided:
So we still have no idea whatsoever who you meant when you used the expression.There are no set or defined characteristics of a great power.
No need to bother, because such a list would be completely irrelevant in any case. It's like suggesting that because nations have historically reversed policy in some cases, it is therefore possible to reverse another nation's policy as desired, on cue. Just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean you or anyone else can make the same thing happen again at any time of your choosing.
The idea that any combination of Western powers can make the Chinese reverse a long-standing perception of self-interest and inspire them with a sudden desire to "fix" the DPRK makes an amusing hypothesis, but it seems too dependent on the assumption of predictable and controllable reaction to have much place in the real world.
Last edited by Dayuhan; 09-05-2012 at 01:47 AM.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
RFP to others, not Dayuhan
Does it make sense to debate with someone who first asserts something strongly, then in face of historical evidence to the contrary plays the same down and finally proceeds to preventively declare all non-consenting evidence irrelevant for his other assertion?
It's kinda like debating with a priest about science.*
__________________
*: I'm curious if comparing a SWC member with a priest is (also) an offence in the eyes of the mods.
Why not propose that we summon up earthquakes and volcanoes to dispose of our rivals? If anyone points out that you don't have the power to do that, you can easily refute the claim by posting a list of historical earthquakes and eruptions...
__________________
*: I'm curious if comparing a SWC member with a priest is (also) an offence in the eyes of the mods.[/QUOTE]
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks