"Demography is destiny"

If you're a well-educated American over a certain age you've probably heard the phrase "Demography is destiny."

Ring any bells?

The phrase was reportedly coined by a 19th-century French philosopher, Auguste Comte, who from studying history hypothesized that the size and composition of a nation's population "influence" its future.

Young Americans have never heard that phrase--and there's a reason.  It's not because the idea has been discredited, but because  your "elites" have cleverly gotten Americans  to ignore the truth of this concept, in part by such an amateurish (but effective) means as  sneering that the man credited with the observation may not actually have uttered it.

Ahh, uncertainty about the author discredits the idea, does it?  Of course not.

I'll explain why the "elites" want very much to discredit this concept in a minute.  But first let me go a bit further than Comte:  The size and composition of a nation's population doesn't just "influence" its future, but rather limits its future with absolute certainty.

Ahh, I hear my Democrat friends saying "Dat beez an old, discredited falsehood!  And you have no evidence that the 'elites' want to discredit this concept!  Dat jus' right-wing conspiracy stories!  Yep yep yep!"

Your so-called "reasoning" is amusing.  Here the f'n New York Times from 2016:
>>There’s a common saying: Demography is destiny. It holds that population trends and distributions determine the future of a country, region or even the entire world.
   But is the concept really valid? Is demography truly destiny? Or, are there still too many questions about what demographic trends actually mean?>>

You were saying...?

So let's begin by looking at military tactics of the 19th century:  In long wars of attrition, 99 percent of the time the nation that had the largest army won.  Any questions?

Yes, there have been exceptions, but they're rare: If the size of the armies of two nations was only different by a few percent, a smaller but better-led army, with more motivated fighters, sometimes won.  But again, it's rare.

But of course that was then, eh?  Today, in the age of nuclear weapons, the size of a nation's armed forces can be offset by a couple of well-placed nukes, eh?

This is why the big nuclear powers haven't gone toe-to-toe: the fear that the side that finds itself losing will go nuclear.

So because nuclear weapons exist, you may think that ends the idea that demography is destiny, eh?

Not even close.  Because for the threat of nuclear weapons to be a deterrent...your enemy has to believe you might actually use 'em.  And here's where "composition" of a nation's population comes in.

Some national leaders put a high priority on survival of their nation.  But other nations--no doubt more sophisticated--know nuclear weapons are terrible: not only do they kill lots of people, they also release harmful radioactive fallout that can last for centuries!

To these more sophisticated people it's far better to surrender--or simply not fight in the first place--than to use nuclear weapons and risk a full-scale nuclear war.

Now stop for a moment: How many of you agree with that last sentence?

Damn near everyone.  And that's totally understandable.  And it's possible that our opponents feel the same way, eh?  I mean, all modern people feel the same about the terrible effects of nuclear weapons, right?

So where does that *inexorably* lead?

With nukes off the table we're back to conventional war, where (assuming equal technology) the size of a nation's armed forces determines who wins.

Now, every young American knows China has X times more people than the U.S.  So ask your kids--or your co-workers--what they think the value of X is.  And if China didn't want to rule the world, having five times our population wouldn't be worrisome.  But...

Now watch the following 4-minute video (turn the sound off; it's terrible!).  It's of thousands of female Chinese soldiers marching in formation at a state parade.  

Democrat: "So?  Dat all for show.  Means nuffin'."

Ah, you've obviously never been in the military.  Getting that many people to march with such precision takes a staggering amount of training and practice.  Extremely dedicated troops.  Total obedience.

Think these gals aren't totally dedicated to the goals of the communist party?

Democrat: "Whut dat matter?  These women won't ever be used in combat!  Dis all for show by duh Party!"

Yes, it's a show.  And other than precise marching skill (which by itself is obviously of no tactical value), what do ya think it shows, sparky?  

Among other things it shows that the CCP could send every man in the PLA into combat without the leaders of the party having to worry about being overthrown, as the female troops would be more than adequate to prevent that.

So with nuclear weapons off the table, how many active-duty military in China vs. the U.S?  China has about two million, the U.S. 1.29 million (of which 100,000 or so are trannies).  But more to the point, if China decides to take over Taiwan they'd be operating just 100 miles from the mainland--thus from land bases--while the U.S. would be operating from aircraft carriers or would depend on air refueling to give U.S. aircraft enough endurance after flying 1,700 miles from Guam.

Either way, no way we can win such a conflict--and every military professional knows it.  None will ever admit it to the public, of course.

So now you start to see why no U.S. school teaches "demography is destiny" anymore.  For a few decades our superior technology kept the peace, but it was only a matter of time before China was able to develop (and with the help of spies in U.S. universities and defense companies, to steal) modern technology.  And when both sides have equal tech, the larger military wins.

As almost always throughout history, demography is destiny, eh?

China's leaders know they don't need to take on the U.S. directly.  Other nations will soon see that the U.S. has ceased to be the dominant world power, and will make whatever arrangements they can with China.