Historical Combat, War, Geopolitics History and Analysis

[contricusc]

China and india are spamming hydropower, solar and nuclear projects and europe being retards they are fumbling around with their ego.

The reality is that the only big region that has reduced its emmissions in the last 30 years is Europe. Also, the EU has increased its renewable power generation at a very fast pace in the last two years, in order to replace the gas imported from Russia. The EU is the global leader when it comes to renewable energy as a share of its energy mix, and it is slowly phasing out coal, while China and India keep increasing their coal capacity.

Russia for all its short comings is not a preachy bastard who tells the world "how they are saving the world" every day.

Yes, they are just bombing their neighbors and killing people, while trying to annex territories. I gues preaching about saving the world is much worse than invading a country in your opinion.

 

[Packetlight]

Yes, you are right about that. Both countries made big progress in this regard in the last 20 years. Maybe they should do the same when it comes to coal-powered energy, and they will start to move to a more sustainable path going forward.

But the African problem remains and the global population is still growing, so the per-capita argument doesn’t stand because the current world population is too large to have a per-capita energy consumption equivalent of developed countries.

Increasing the global per-capita consumption of energy should come only at the same time with a decreae in population and a qualitative increase in the energy mix. Right now, developing nations are increasing coal energy at unsustainable levels, and this should be addreessed.

"The African problem" ???????

What is the African problem?

 

[contricusc]

"The African problem" ???????

What is the African problem?

The excessive birth rate and population growth. While all other regions of the world have a relatively stable population (some are still slowly growing, while some are even decreasing), Africa continues to grow its population at an unsustainable rate.

 

[Jammer]

The reality is that the only big region that has reduced its emmissions in the last 30 years is Europe. Also, the EU has increased its renewable power generation at a very fast pace in the last two years, in order to replace the gas imported from Russia. The EU is the global leader when it comes to renewable energy as a share of its energy mix, and it is slowly phasing out coal, while China and India keep increasing their coal capacity

I think you meant to say the only big region where people are among the most richest in per capita terms by achieving industrialisation by utilising fossil fuels to the max and now due to their activism has thrown all of it down the drain for green intiatives which has made the largest economy in the EU being germany now stagnating and even in a possible recession and UK unable to even produce its own steel. Only Europeans would boast about their stupidity. The rest of thr world however isn't led on the orders of blue haired whales and knows the place of cheap and quick means of electricity for achieving their industrialization.

Yes, they are just bombing their neighbors and killing people, while trying to annex territories. I gues preaching about saving the world is much worse than invading a country in your opinion

Big words coming from a group of guys who haven't invaded countries for some imaginary reasons killing scores of people and then leaving a big mess that results in total anarchy in those regions.

 

[contricusc]

The rest of thr world however isn't led on the orders of blue haired whales and knows the place of cheap and quick means of electricity for achieving their industrialization.

I don’t deny the usefulness of fossil fuels when it comes to obtaining quick, stable and cheap energy. From a cost perspective, they are the best source of energy, but the excessive burning of fossil fuels at a global level will have negative consequences for the whole world in the long term.

If every country wants to achieve a high level of industrialization by burning coal, than global emissions will continue to raise for a very long time, and accumulate in the atmosphere. This is now a known fact, and this is why “blue haired whales” are trying to push the world in a direction where it reduces the amount of fossil fuel it burns.

While Europe is paying the price of using more expensive renewable energy instead of simply burning coal, in the form of higher cost of energy and lower competitiveness of energy-intensive industries, it is moving on a sustainable direction. The problem is with the rest of the world that continues to burn coal just because it is a little cheaper.

This is why I said at the begining that Europeans should not court countries like India just for the sake of countering China, because in the end India and China are acting in the exact same way.

In order for the push to renewables to succeed, the whole world needs to cut down on fossil fuels use, and countries like India that continue to build coal power generation are sabotaging this effort.

 

[Packetlight]

The excessive birth rate and population growth. While all other regions of the world have a relatively stable population (some are still slowly growing, while some are even decreasing), Africa continues to grow its population at an unsustainable rate.

Funny, so just because a bunch of rich European countries decide to stop or reduce its population growth, Africa should suddenly stop giving birth🫤🫤 is that what you are saying?

On what ground are you to define how we grow our population?

 

[Costin1984]

Funny, so just because a bunch of rich European countries decide to stop or reduce its population growth, Africa should suddenly stop giving birth🫤🫤 is that what you are saying?

On what ground are you to define how we grow our population?

Because you can't even feed or provide basic necessities for the people you have now,let alone future, growing numbers?

 

[Packetlight]

Because you can't even feed or provide basic necessities for the people you have now,let alone future, growing numbers?

Rubbish!
Coming from someone who have never set foot in Africa. Too much BBC and CNN makes you think everyone in Africa is poor and hungry.

 

[Costin1984]

Rubbish!
Coming from someone who have never set foot in Africa. Too much BBC and CNN makes you think everyone in Africa is poor and hungry.

I never said that , however ,denying that Africa's population outstretches its current resources is undeniable.

 

[contricusc]

On what ground are you to define how we grow our population?

First of all, you should notice that the countries with high population growth are generally the poorest countries. Even in Africa, the wealthier countries have a normal birth rate (Seychelles, South Africa or Morocco), while the highest birth rates are in the poorest countries (Niger, Chad, DR Congo, Somalia, CAR, Mali or Angola).

So the countries growing the fastest are the ones having difficulties to provide even for their current population.

Since we were talking about global emissions and their impact on the climate, one point of contention is about emissions per capita, and the idea that poor countries should be allowed to increase the use of coal and other fossil fuels despite harming everyone, because they have the right to be industrialized as well. The problem is, the global population is already too high, and if everyone would be as energy intensive as people in developed countries, the global emissions would skyrocket and the climate would be getting hotter at a dangerosly high rate. This is why population growth needs to stop, and population decline is actually a positive thing.

As a side thought, there is growing angst among people in developed countries because there is a big influx of illegal immigrants coming from Africa to get out of poverty. They represent a burden on the receiving countries, and a growing population in the poorest countries is a guarantee that such migration will continue in the foreseeable future.

Why can’t some African countries get in line with the rest of the world and have XXI century brith rates? The mortality rate has been greatly reduced, so they should stop breeding like in the XIV century.

 

[Jammer]

As a side thought, there is growing angst among people in developed countries because there is a big influx of illegal immigrants coming from Africa to get out of poverty. They represent a burden on the receiving countries, and a growing population in the poorest countries is a guarantee that such migration will continue in the foreseeable future.

As anything this shows biggest reason for migration to Europe has been their governments lax or even outright red carpet treatment they give out refugees at the beginning stages.When you got the german government running ads on local indian newspapers encouraging indians to migrate to become doctors in germany is sure gonna make them to consider migrating. Mediterranean can be easily policed and yet Europe as usual pays African countries to do their work in stopping refugees when they are ill equiped and you do have to remember that Europe too had high birth rate before its industrialisation period and then expecting africans to do the same is hypocritical.

 

[Packetlight]

First of all, you should notice that the countries with high population growth are generally the poorest countries. Even in Africa, the wealthier countries have a normal birth rate (Seychelles, South Africa or Morocco), while the highest birth rates are in the poorest countries (Niger, Chad, DR Congo, Somalia, CAR, Mali or Angola).

So the countries growing the fastest are the ones having difficulties to provide even for their current population.

You are actually looking at it the wrong or perhaps did no research on how population in Africa is high.

Majority of Africa population are young and can't be compare with most developed countries. Place like Nigeria where you have almost 70% of it population being under 40 and 50% part of this might be 18-20. Compare to Nigeria population growth decades ago it as actually reduced, but still the reduction you are hoping is not gonna happen anytime soon.

And know this population growth is not the reason for poverty or even an excuse...corruption is the key reason. Our population would have been an advantage if we had good leaders.

Since we were talking about global emissions and their impact on the climate, one point of contention is about emissions per capita, and the idea that poor countries should be allowed to increase the use of coal and other fossil fuels despite harming everyone, because they have the right to be industrialized as well. The problem is, the global population is already too high, and if everyone would be as energy intensive as people in developed countries, the global emissions would skyrocket and the climate would be getting hotter at a dangerosly high rate. This is why population growth needs to stop, and population decline is actually a positive thing.

What you are implying is that we stop industrialization and be doing what?? Africa didn't cause global warming you guyz did not us...and compare to present emission we are still less behind. Don't preach global warming to us when you are yet to do so despite been rich.

As a side thought, there is growing angst among people in developed countries because there is a big influx of illegal immigrants coming from Africa to get out of poverty. They represent a burden on the receiving countries, and a growing population in the poorest countries is a guarantee that such migration will continue in the foreseeable future.

Why should they complain?

When NATO and USA were launching their democratic bombing campaign allover ME and Africa guess they didn't realize the consequences. In fact NATO intervention in Libya is the sole cause or catalyst to jihadist problem Nigeria is facing today.

Why can’t some African countries get in line with the rest of the world and have XXI century birth rates? The mortality rate has been greatly reduced, so they should stop breeding like in the XIV century.

What does breeding look like in XIV? Africa's population is young and will continue to grow and you can't stop that trend.

 

[Packetlight]

I never said that , however ,denying that Africa's population outstretches its current resources is undeniable.

Of course, our resources are overstretched due to corruption not a lack of resources.

 

[contricusc]

As anything this shows biggest reason for migration to Europe has been their governments lax or even outright red carpet treatment they give out refugees at the beginning stages.When you got the german government running ads on local indian newspapers encouraging indians to migrate to become doctors in germany is sure gonna make them to consider migrating.

I agree with you here, the Europeans have terrible policies regarding migration, and most of the blame for the migration problems lies with the host countries.

Mediterranean can be easily policed and yet Europe as usual pays African countries to do their work in stopping refugees when they are ill equiped and you do have to remember that Europe too had high birth rate before its industrialisation period and then expecting africans to do the same is hypocritical.

Policing the Mediterranean is complicated because of the current laws. Once a ship in distress is found, you need to bring those people to a safe harbor, and in the Mediterranean, this means in a European harbor, unless they are caught by African coast guards that can turn them back.

The Euopean countries cannot disembark the ships in Libya, and this is why they prefer for the Libyan coastguard to do this job.

But I agree with you here that the laws are bad and they need to be adapted to the realities of today. Europeans have mostly themselves to blame for the immigration problem.

As for the high birth rates befoe industrialization, you need to put this in the context of the time. Nobody knew back then about carbon emissions and the dangers of air pollution, and the moratlity rate was also much higher because of lack of vaccination and endless wars.

African countries now benefit from vaccination and reduced infant mortality rates, but some of them continue to have fertility rates from the middle ages, and this is why population growth is so huigh.

 

[contricusc]

You are actually looking at it the wrong or perhaps did no research on how population in Africa is high.

Majority of Africa population are young and can't be compare with most developed countries. Place like Nigeria where you have almost 70% of it population being under 40 and 50% part of this might be 18-20. Compare to Nigeria population growth decades ago it as actually reduced, but still the reduction you are hoping is not gonna happen anytime soon.

And know this population growth is not the reason for poverty or even an excuse...corruption is the key reason. Our population would have been an advantage if we had good leaders.

I know about your country‘s demographics, and the only way to stop the population from expanding is to convince people to have less children.

It is easy to put all the blame on corruption, but a high birth rate has consequences, and poverty is one of them. A family with many children has less resources to care for them, so they generally receive less education and less attention than children from families with only one or two. There is also the housing problem, because when children grow they don’t have a place to live, which exacerbates the poverty problem. In the end, there is also the inheritance issue, because more kids means the wealth of the parents is divided to more people, resulting in less inheritance per person.

One of the reasons why countries with low birth rates have wealthier people is because the wealth accumulates through generations. If a family has only one child who inherits everything, he/she inherits the wealth of two persons. If you have many families with only one child, wealth begins to accumulate and you end up with people owning a few houses, where they can rent some of them and earn extra income. This is how children from big families end up paying rent to those from one child families, further extending the wealth gap.

What you are implying is that we stop industrialization and be doing what?? Africa didn't cause global warming you guyz did not us...and compare to present emission we are still less behind. Don't preach global warming to us when you are yet to do so despite been rich.

I imply that they shoul reduce their birth rates. China’s one child policy is a success story, where a country had record development and managed to achieve a highly educated population in record time because they implemented a policy that reduced the number of children. What would have China’s population be now if they didn’t have this policy?

When NATO and USA were launching their democratic bombing campaign allover ME and Africa guess they didn't realize the consequences. In fact NATO intervention in Libya is the sole cause or catalyst to jihadist problem Nigeria is facing today.

Libya was having a civil war before NATO interfered. But I agree that the intervention has been ill thought and should have not happened.

What does breeding look like in XIV? Africa's population is young and will continue to grow and you can't stop that trend.

Breeding like in the XIV century means having lots of children, because most of them will die young and only a few will survive to adulthood (as this was the norm during the Middle Ages). But now you have much lower infant mortality rates because of vaccination and advances in medicine, and even in the poorest countries most people will reach adulthood, so people should simply adapt and have less children than they had before. Most of the world did adapt, but there are still many countries, most of them in Africa, where people continue to breed like rabbits, and the population of those countries is raising at an unsustainable rate.

 

[Hari Sud]

India's Long Confrontation with Two Neighbours


India did not seek enmity with its two significant neighbors, Pakistan and China. However, historical events and geopolitical strategies have shaped its current adversarial relationships.

Pakistan

The British played a significant role in fostering enmity to India’s west by merging territory taken from Afghans with Punjab's heartland, a region crucial for British military recruitment. This area was named Pakistan, forming a hostile nation with a different religious philosophy but cultural similarities to India. The peaceful Kashmir region was given a choice to join either India or Pakistan. However, before a decision could be made, Pakistan invaded Kashmir, planting the seeds of future discord.

British-instilled fears of the Soviet Union reaching the Indian Ocean through Pakistan led the Americans to arm Pakistan, providing military aid in three phases: 1954-1959, 1981-1989, and 2001-2010. Each phase's aid, valued over $20 billion today, enabled Pakistan to pose a significant threat to India.

India fought three major wars against Pakistan in 1965, 1971, and 1999, resulting in significant losses for Pakistan despite substantial American military aid. India's less-equipped army triumphed through superior tactics and determination. However, the conflict and Pakistan’s obsession with Hindu India persist. Unable to sustain a direct war effort, Pakistan now resorts to terrorism.

China

While India was engaged with Pakistan, Mao Tse Tung seized Indian territory in the Himalayas in 1954. Initially unclear, the motive soon became evident as China built roads connecting the westernmost Muslim province of Xinjiang with China, passing through Indian territory. This prompted Chinese occupation and claims.

China also took issue with India granting political refuge to the Dalai Lama, leading to the 1962 invasion of an unprepared India. The Chinese bypassed the scantily armed Indian garrison in the Himalayas, delivering a significant setback to India. Although they later withdrew, the dispute continues with occasional skirmishes.

Current Scenario

By 2024, India has made significant economic progress and equipped itself militarily well. Pakistan, unable to fight directly, has resorted to terrorism, while China intimidates with threats of large-scale military invasion. India has responded well by positioning its well-armed forces strategically, capable of striking at Pakistan's heart and disrupting Chinese supply lines in Xinjiang and Tibet. These steps are sufficient to dissuade both adversaries.

Pakistan, now bankrupt, struggles to sustain any war effort. China, confronting multiple adversaries like Japan, USA, Taiwan, Philippines, and Vietnam, finds it challenging to commit a large army to the Himalayas. India, equipped with state-of-the-art weapons, stands firm against its adversaries. However, recognizing the need for allies, India seeks strategic partnerships to bolster its defense capabilities against these combined threats. No reliable strategic partner for India with similar strategic goals has emerged.

Indian Ocean

Since the military position in the North and West is at a standstill, the Chinese have shifted their focus to the Indian Ocean, building supply bases in the region and deploying research vessels to monitor the Indian Navy.

India has responded by establishing naval bases at the mouth of the Straits of Malacca and in the Arabian Sea. The Indian Navy is well-prepared with modern destroyers, battleships, aircraft carriers, P8i planes, submarines, and a nuclear strike force. While the Chinese are attempting to intimidate, they are not prepared for action 4,000 km away from their home bases. Hence, it is a standstill in the Indian Ocean as well.

Summary

India's long-term security with two enemies on its border is not fully assured. The only way forward is for India to continue rapid economic progress, resulting in higher defense buildup. This will be sufficient to signal to its adversaries that India cannot be pushed around

 

[Packetlight]

I know about your country‘s demographics, and the only way to stop the population from expanding is to convince people to have less children.

It is easy to put all the blame on corruption, but a high birth rate has consequences, and poverty is one of them. A family with many children has less resources to care for them, so they generally receive less education and less attention than children from families with only one or two. There is also the housing problem, because when children grow they don’t have a place to live, which exacerbates the poverty problem. In the end, there is also the inheritance issue, because more kids means the wealth of the parents is divided to more people, resulting in less inheritance per person.

You can't exempt corruption from it cause if our present resource have been we'll managed we won't be in the mess we are today and education for everyone won't have being a problem for everyone.

When there is good governance population growth won't be a problem, check Nigeria in the 50s and 60s when we still have good governace the growth was steady and declining at some point, cause you have people from both gender highly educated nothing wanting too many children.

But notwithstanding...Nigeria population growth is decreasing so is Africa as a whole, but not as rapid as you might want.
When there is good governance


Inheritance issue, it depends on individual, with the little one can make success if they are serious.

One of the reasons why countries with low birth rates have wealthier people is because the wealth accumulates through generations. If a family has only one child who inherits everything, he/she inherits the wealth of two persons. If you have many families with only one child, wealth begins to accumulate and you end up with people owning a few houses, where they can rent some of them and earn extra income. This is how children from big families end up paying rent to those from one child families, further extending the wealth gap.

You know you point can also be argued.
So what happens when this wealth is mismanaged? We have had family with multiple children yet it a success story, same way we've had rich family with single child yet their wealth ended up being nothing today. If those rich countries experience bad governance like most Africa countries do I bet those rich individuals would be counting losses by now..check how bad policy and corruption is crippling Nigeria middle-class.

I imply that they shoul reduce their birth rates. China’s one child policy is a success story, where a country had record development and managed to achieve a highly educated population in record time because they implemented a policy that reduced the number of children. What would have China’s population be now if they didn’t have this policy?

You can't compare Chinas culture with ours...Northerners in Nigeria sees marry up to four wives has a religion obligation they must follow, try and stop it and watch it turn to violence. The southern part of Nigeria is already experiencing decline in birth rate.

Breeding like in the XIV century means having lots of children, because most of them will die young and only a few will survive to adulthood (as this was the norm during the Middle Ages). But now you have much lower infant mortality rates because of vaccination and advances in medicine, and even in the poorest countries most people will reach adulthood, so people should simply adapt and have less children than they had before. Most of the world did adapt, but there are still many countries, most of them in Africa, where people continue to breed like rabbits, and the population of those countries is raising at an unsustainable rate.

Africans having multiple children is more of a cultural thing than what you stipulated. And you referencing XIV-century kind of growth is totally false.