I don't agree with that. Lets assume you are correct however, and that the US can nuke most of mainland China so it is not a threat. The question then is what about the 4 million Chinese background people living in the US? I can't imagine they would be too happy about it. With them being on home soil you would have to be tactile about the situation which would cause huge domestic problems.
I know (Cabramatta more specifically). Yes, it is a bit of a problem, but the rate of growth for Vietnamese living in Australia is minimal/not a big issue. Whereas for China on the other hand...
True.
internment camps have worked before
those 4 million would be smart to proclaim loyalty to america in that scenario.
Only thing is that they have a beast no. of people and an army selection process, in which the people selected are smart and fit as heck.
Of course China is good for Australia's economy currently. In a military/strategic situation though, Australia is never going to side with China over the US.
Immigration 50 years ago was great and at a good level. Each suburb got a Greek restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, an Italian restaurant, a Vietnamese restaurant etc. Now-a-days thoguh no suburb needs 100 Chinese restaurants.
Yes, but I don't want to be the next Hitler. No, thanks.
The strength of China is 1) its population and 2) its economy. The sheer number of its citizens are a danger, especially once they spread more globally and infiltrate other countries (yet are still for the most part aligned with China not their country of residence). If the US trys to manage/subdue China as likely will be required, then the dip in the economy will likely send the world and the us into recession.
Everything about that statement goes against the Chinese culture/pride though (I do agree it would be the smart thing to do however).
No. Diversity is good. If you have a few Sydney suburbs that is 90% Chinese, then they are not diverse and that is bad. It would be better that all Australian suburbs were 5% Chinese etc.
aww that's no fun
china has been the most populous 'country' in the world for thousands of years, and as a result has had one of the most sizable economies. the last two centuries have been an aberration in terms of the (lack of) chinese prestige, hence why the period of roughly 1820-1940 is referred to as the century of humiliation. for hundreds of centuries too, the chinese have been spreading globally and infiltrating other countries. so none of these three variables you identify are historically unique, and they therefore fail to explain why now, at this very moment, china is uniquely threatening. it is not at all clear that the chinese harbour the same pretensions to hegemony (read: imperial) as the united states does and the british did before it, nor does it seem that they are inherently expansionist like the USSR. what's your real concern?
if you cared to read that article, or putnam's research (both past and current), you'd know that this wasn't a big deal as you're making it out to be. the conclusion is not that diversity is necessarily good or bad, but that its consequences are contingent. in the context of high socio-economic status, political engagement and community congeniality, diversity is good.
there's the selection effect; because high SES areas don't attract latinos and blacks (i.e. the poors). also higher incidence of bilingualism, better business relationships etc. more importantly, only the 'good' ethnics (i.e. the higher SES ones) move into high SES communities. the thing about putnam's research is that it's a snapshot of the U.S. and therefore fundamentally determined by the unique demography and geography of the U.S. it also doesn't deal at all with the 'enclave' effect; diversity is such a broad concept and aggregated data on diversity and social capital doesn't capture the deleterious effects of clusterisation and isolation of ethnic communities (i.e. enclaves)
vile for not wanting violence, got it.
Why would the US want to start a war with China?
What do you mean when you say "give a voice"?
