Political rants

I heard the USA has little in terms of anti-air defense. From what I've been told, the USA's main anti-air defenses are air and naval assets, and some surface-to-air systems dependent on state. California for instance mainly uses local navy assets such as planes and ships for defense if I remember correctly. I think the USA has been trying to obtain Iron Dome technologies from Israel too. One problem to consider is the relations between the PRC and Canada also, as they conduct joint military training and there is a PLA presence in Canada. o7

I have a very hard time believing that. Air superiority is the measure of a good military in today's world. I don't know specifics but the aircrafts, drones, and anti air guns must be top notch.

I cannot have a saying in war affairs. My issue is more with ancient war formations and strategies, now moot by modern warfare.

@kuharido I should have clarified, I'm talking about defense of the USA mainland. While the USA's technology is highly advanced, they don't necessarily deploy them within it's own borders in an adequate manner. This is sort of fueled by not seeing the need for it, given the USA isn't exactly "surrounded by enemies" regionally, and also the fact that it houses nuclear weapons. Part of the reason why the USA built massive highways was so that assets could be moved quickly across the nation as needed, reducing the need for dense clusters of defensive hardware within the continental USA. The USA also has assets around the world, which would probably help intercept any activities from a hostile power. o7

This is something I could be wrong, or have outdated information on, but as far as I know this is the USA's current "practice". I think part of it is due to a sense of invincibility the USA has, which is a similar reason politicians in the USA don't focus on hardening it's power grid and other essential services. o7

A thing I find extraordinary is how China returned to its status of a major geopolitical player. They are there before the dawn of Rome and only fell into major decline in the start of the modern era and thus becoming reliant in the Western powers. This only changed with the Xinhai Revolution and then the Communist Revolution. However, the CCP wasn't worse than the KMT (Kuomintang) when it came to authoritarism. When the KMT escaped to Formosa (now Taiwan), it was an even worse dictatorship than the CPC could ever dream. Ironically, we can see which of the two countries are closer to a multiparty Liberal democracy.

I would definitely say the CCP was worse than the KMT. I'll take the Taiwanese Miracle any day over the Great Leap Forward. While both engaged in heavy authoritarianism, the CCP sustained that policy of authoritarianism and the eroding of Han Chinese culture and TW eventually transitioned into a more representative form of government as intended. I'm not sure how anything the ROC did in the "White Terror" could even hold a candle to the great slaughter and starvation of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolutions. o7

Mainland China has the following thing: Every single change or even internal war it underwent, hundreds of millions died due to famine and shit. The Great Leap Forward was a huge flop, and worsened China's already fragile economy. With Socialism it wouldn't be different.